Picture yourself being denied an identity and a place to call home. Your rights to study, work, travel, marry and practice your religion simply non-existent– because you belong nowhere. You are not given any way to prove who you are or where you are from, so gaining citizenship status anywhere is almost impossible. Wherever you go, you are locked in detention – merely because of who you are. This is the life of a Rohingya person. The history: Since 1948, citizenship law in Myanmar (Burma) has been restrictive, resulting in stripping the Rohingya people access to full citizenship. The government stress that the Rohingya people are not Burmese citizens, despite having lived in Myanmar for generations. Thus, to this day, they have neither a real home nor citizenship. Just before 2012, violence broke out in Myanmar as Rohingya men were accused of raping and killing a Buddhist woman. With no proof to confirm this, Buddhist nationalists (Rakhine Buddhists - who make up the majority of the population in Myanmar,) responded by burning Rohingya homes, killing Rohingya people and displacing tens of thousands. Human Rights Watch had called this a ‘campaign of ethnic cleansing[1],’ which is exactly what it was then and has continued to be 5 years on. As these attacks worsen, more people have been forced to flee and leave their homes – yet Rohingya people are rejected almost everywhere they seek refuge; leading many to live limbo across Southeast Asia, some even stranded at sea – it is estimated that hundreds have died trying to make it to safety. Due to this exclusion, their everyday life options are limited from marriage, family planning, employment, freedom of movement and freedom of religion – which are basic human rights. For instance, they are only allowed to have two children per family, they must seek permission to marry and in order to move, they must seek approval from the government. Imagine a life completely dictated by your government and your system, merely due to your religious and ethnic identity. Thus, they are deemed as the most prosecuted minorities on Earth. Why is there no outrage or real coverage? There are reasons as to why big media outlets have not been able to cover the crisis, however, it is heavily argued to be ‘not good enough.’ Burmese government have censored coverage and banned journalists from the area since Suu Kyi has come into power, simultaneously denying reports of these atrocities and refusing visas to UN officials. The leader herself has also remained silent on the matter due to her reputation and for being a ‘Nobel Prize winner’ (ironic, I know.) Yet, the very rare occasions where she does give interviews, she has said the violence had stemmed from fear felt on both sides and rejects claims of ethnic cleansing (2013[2].) In 2016, she further went onto accusing the international community, for focusing on the ‘negative side of the situation[3]’ (because ‘evidently,’ there is a positive twist to it, which no one but her can see?) I sat watching the news at 5pm yesterday and again at 10pm, there was absolutely no mention of this humanitarian crisis, which only sent the message of ‘it’s not a western country, so we are not going to even try and cover it.’ Most media outlets are known to be able to get their way around situations in order to be able to broadcast news, so why not use those measures now? Granted, it is may be more difficult to retain primary information, yet a mere mention or clips produced by Times for example (available on YouTube or on their site,) would suffice. At least that way, people would be aware enough to potentially do their own research and help. What should happen next? Ultimately, the Myanmar government need to end the violent crackdown on Rohingya people and amend or repeal the 1982 Burma Citizenship Law to provide them with full citizenship in their country. In the meantime, countries like Bangladesh in Southeast Asian need to ensure those fleeing are protected and are granted access. They also need to prevent any arbitrary detainment of Rohingya people; instead they should protect their rights as human beings. I am not in a position to tell anyone what they should do, that being said, I am in a position to raise awareness and give you coverage of what the media is not. Likewise, you are in a position to spread this awareness and give back to those suffering this crisis. The task of raising the alarm over the Rohingya’s plight has been left to human rights advocates around the world – which is why it is important for us to be aware and to help spread the awareness in order to prevent and pacify such a vile situation, through political pressures to end this humanitarian crisis. Accordingly, I have linked a charity and a fundraiser, raising money for Rohingya crisis: Partners: rohingya.partners.ngo (according to reports: 85% go towards the program.) Local (Oxford:) charity football match, contact @rkhr90 (instagram.) [1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/04/22/all-you-can-do-pray/crimes-against-humanity-and-ethnic-cleansing-rohingya-muslims [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24651359 [3]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/03/aung-san-suu-kyi-accuses-international-community-of-stoking-unrest-in-myanmar
0 Comments
Let me begin by quoting an abhorrent man, who makes a clever point, Joseph Stalin, “when one man dies, that is a tragedy, when thousands die, that is a statistic.” This is one of the reasons why much of the world was able to overlook the years old Syrian refugee crisis – until recently, where a three-year-old boys body washed ashore in Turkey, creating a media frenzy. Aylan Kurdi drowned with his five-year-old brother, and mother trying to get to Greece, his father Abdullah, survived and returned to Syria to bury his family. He was then offered a chance to resettle in another country, in which he responded with “Now I don’t want anything, what was precious is gone.” – Words that should haunt those responsible. Before going onto the individuals who are responsible, I need to address the correct terminology that has recently been circulating the Internet. For one thing, it is not a migrant crisis, on the grounds that migrants decide to leave their homes in quest for better education, employment and more opportunities. Refugees, in which case I will cite the UN HCR; “are persons fleeing armed conflict/persecution. These are people for whom the denial of asylum has potential deadly consequences.” Since the 1951 Refugee Commission, refugees have had certain rights under international law. Including the right not to be returned to their country of origin if their safety cannot be guaranteed (somebody remind Greece;) the right not to be punished for entering a country illicitly in the event that they ask for asylum, and the right to life, education, security, religious express, all free.These Syrians that are fleeing their country, who are evidently by definition refugees, have all these rights under international law that all of Europe and basically the world has agreed to for the last 65 years! Although there are also real migrants trying to get into countries for better opportunities, most of the people we are hearing about on the news are refugees, and the distinction is incredibly important. STATISTICS
Yet, the issue with them moving to neighbouring countries (such as Turkey,) is that they are under legal limbo outside of camps, as they are not allowed to work. So although many have good education and labour skills, they cannot make a living – hence in search of lasting refuge, in which case, they turn to Europe. Who is responsible? The media, William Kristol, the President, Lindsey Graham, Samantha Power and so on. They said the Arab Spring would be better for individuals, despite the fact that 98,000 people were slaughtered in Syria. Significant results, demise and hopelessness for each one of those in the Middle East and the same individuals responsible are currently saying more arms, more war, and more devastation. The Asaad regime additionally have some fault, yet so do Iran, Russia and China who are giving direct/indirect support to the regime and doing next to nothing about the subsequent refugee crisis. The Arab States of the Gulf, albeit promising financial support have acknowledged zero refugees. Australia’s refugee record is abysmal and potentially disregarding International law. US have acknowledged less refugees, substantially less than countries, such as Brazil, regardless of them asserting the Arab Spring, and being fully involved in mass pulverisation of Syria and their people. To make matters worse, the way the government is managing this has turned out to be progressively bigot and irrational. We frequently hear migrants are excessively prone to carry out criminal acts, yet that is just not true. A huge body of data says that refugees and first generation immigrants to the US commit crimes much less crimes than other Americans. Ultimately, when the oppressed and marginalised are dying because they are oppressed and marginalised, those in power are at fault. Three year old Aylan Kurdi would be alive today and many others who have experienced the same fate as him, if they were welcomed by the European Union, Canada, Australia, US, Brazil etc. What world leaders and those in power need to remember is that although we do have legal obligations under International law, we also have ethical obligations towards the refugees. (Twitter - @JUUUKES.) Lowkey's lyrics express the essence of the refugee crisis. World Leaders need to do more, we need to push them to do more. Dallas; already a byword for political violence before Thursday’s massacre – the place where Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F Kennedy in 1963 and shattered America’s post-war innocence. Some may say it was doomed to live through violence since; apparently the worst attack since 9/11 according major American news outlets. Guns. Race. Mass death. America cannot seem to get beyond this divisive toxic mix that seems to just keep cycling through its modern history like a rinse and repeat cycle stuck without repair. You would think after the events in Ferguson and the murder of Mike Brown the police would be cautious before pulling the trigger on unarmed men. Maybe America is prone to repeating history; it has proven to be a nation, which really does not learn from their mistakes. Children are watching their loved ones die right in front of their eyes - Philando Castille. Some children are not even granted the chance to see their dad come home from work - Alton Sterling; but the list does not end there, the body count keeps increasing. Watching someone die through the lens of a mobile phone camera gives most of us a visceral combination of emotions. But seeing the fatal police shootings this week of Sterling and Castile through the eyes of their children stirs an even more raw sense of tragedy and helplessness. “I want my daddy;” these three words by Alton Sterling’s son expresses exactly why we cannot stay silent, why people are so angry despite their skin colour, because the voices are not being heard, nothing is being done and the same children from the same background keep losing the people they love. To Sterling’s son, though, this wasn’t simply another story about a black man killed by police. This was his daddy – and it is now his story. How many more children must witness such destruction, how many more broken homes and families? How many more childhood memories of a police officer shooting their loved ones does it take? But why Black Lives Matter? Well, that’s an ignorant question. For Black Americans, innocence was lost long ago. Violence has been the norm for centuries. A study conducted last year found that black Americans are more than twice as likely to be unarmed than whites when killed in incidents involving the police[1]. The protest at the centre of Thursday’s horror was a response to the “death-by-cop” this week of two more black men. America prides itself on being an ongoing experiment in democracy that guarantees the rights of all. Yet racism remains a fact of every day life. One hundred and fifty years after slavery was ended and 50 years since segregation was outlawed, some black citizens still live in fear of their own police and given the events, maybe rightly so. It always was: racism is its original sin. Ta-Nehisi Coates once observed, “America begins in black plunder and white democracy.” He was right. There are those who argue that black people get arrested or even shot more often than whites because they commit more crime. This overlooks certain problems. The first is a history of institutional racism – of militias, police forces and individual citizens arming themselves specifically out of fear of supposed black criminality. Racism in America has often been official policy, and that official policy has, over the decades, left an imprint on the minds of some white people. There is an irresistible correlation between the dogs and water hoses being turned on civil rights protestors in the 1960s and the invidious “stand your ground” laws that today empower citizens to shoot if they feel threatened. Why on earth are they being arrested for practicing their First Amendment? – “The right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Gov’t for redress of grievances.” One study found that juries sitting on a “stand your ground” case are twice as likely to convict the perpetrator of a crime against a white person than against a person of colour. People sometimes question why the campaign group Black Lives Matter insists on saying “black” rather than “all lives matter” – but the uneven application of the law suggests that their political bias is a rational response to the bias they experience in everyday life. Be it the shooting of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile and dozens of others or the ambush of police officers — these raw painful final moments showing the violent end of someone's life are now everywhere. When African-Americans saw what happened to the two Black men they saw themselves — their lectures to their children of what can happen if they do not fully "comply" with police stops, sank on their shoulders like lead. We often think of online activism, as a shallow bid for fleeting attention, but this movement is helping to lead has been able to sustain the country’s focus and reach millions of people. Among many Black Americans, long accustomed to mistreatment or worse at the hands of the police, the past year has brought on an incalculable sense of anger and despair. For the world as a whole, we have come to learn the names of the victims — Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Tony Robinson, Walter Scott, Freddie Gray, Mike Brown; Mark Duggan, Sheku Bayoh, Faruk Ali, Sarah Reed (the UK is not innocent either) — because the activists have linked their fates together in our minds, despite their separation by many weeks and thousands of miles. [1] http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/ (Twitter - @JUUUKES.) Say his name: Alton Sterling. Alton was 37 years old and selling CDs; he also had permission to do so from the surrounding establishments. Alton was executed in cold blood. I need you to have the courage to admit this was fucked up and happens far too often. I need you to have the decency to accept this was no accident. Alton did not resist arrest – however, he was pinned down by two Louisiana police officers. The state of Louisiana permits gun possession without the need for a warrant or a licence. Alton could not reach for his gun despite the outcry of the officers and the dispatch caller. Alton was lying on his back with two men on top of him and was complying with the officers' demands. There was no danger posed to these trigger happy policemen.
My heart is full and heavy and broken. The double standard; the disrespect, the language, the police narrative measured against the truth are infuriating. These are not themes I've arbitrarily mentioned; it's a constant pattern present in the death of POC from armed officials. Do not tell me 'all lives matter' as a movement is in the best interest of all lives. The movement, contrary to its name, does not appear to extend to people of colour. The media chose to use Alton's mugshot; it was conscious choice of whatever producer or director put together the segment. I'm active on Twitter; I've seen the family photos of Alton – images of a caring, loving man. The use of a mugshot automatically reduces Alton to a criminal; the value of context, honesty and fact are blurred by the choice of imagery to skew sympathy towards the police officers who committed murder. Alton was a victim. If you think white privilege is a made up concept – explain why Brock Turner's Stanford ID was used for the face of his crime but a mugshot is being used to symbolise Alton Turner as a victim. If you think white privilege doesn't exist, tell me why videos of the crime are kept off of TV and social media 'out of respect' for white families but I've had to watch Alton Sterling's execution repeatedly, from different angles, today. Tell me why Alton Sterling suffered 6 bullet wounds and the media used his mugshot but the 18 year old white girl from Santee had her selfie aired after committing her crimes. These videos of black people murdered at the hands of police are shared constantly. The tenuous line between raising awareness for activism in the name of justice and desensitising the masses becomes increasingly blurred. We have been exposed to this violence, to ignorance, to hatred and misconduct to the point where we run the risk of feeling nothing when these injustices, these tragedies occur. I implore you to stop sharing these videos, the work to dehumanize black death. Why have I had to watch Alton's 15 year old son collapse into himself on national TV, wailing as grief robbed the air from this lungs? Why have I had to watch Alton's wife struggle to speak in front of the press on the murder of her husband? Attorney of the store owner says Alton Sterling began carrying a sidearm out of fear of being robbed. I'd like to think the 2nd Amendment crowd would rush to his defence however, I have the distinct feeling the pro-gun community doesn't speak with black people in mind when rights are discussed. The uniform comes with a code of silence. How can your partner trust you if they feel you could speak on how badly they fuck up? You're supposed to protect one another and the department when you murder indiscriminately, right? I mean, why would you want to have to take accountability for your actions? As long everyone can keep their mouths shut, as long these body cameras just happen to 'stop working', as long as you don't have to suffer the consequences – it's okay. Both officers were in possession of non operational body cameras. Luckily, the footage was caught on an iPhone. We need change, it is long overdue. It must come on many fronts – one of which is from within the police force. There needs to be internal criticism with consequences whether it be training or unemployment. This force was created in the interests of protecting the people, it no longer serves this purpose. The people are afraid. We wake up, as people of colour, and feel unsafe because our skin is criminal. There is no space for anyone to say the way one dresses influences their chances of survival; too many have died to testify to this idea. There is no amount of puffery to stem this very deep, very real, fear. To be a person of colour and innocent and risk being slaughtered as you step onto the street by the men and women who swore to protect you. These people hide behind their badge – they murder with impunity. Neutrality has only ever served in favour of the oppressor, it always will. There is too much at stake, too much blood has been spilled, to many have died for you to stay silent in an attempt to stay on the fence. Is your silence motivated by your inability to empathise? Do you not feel anger and upset when lives are so brutally lost? Are you blind to the systemic racism plaguing these apparent institutions of protection? Hashtags are not enough, they've been far too reductive for far too long. It's not enough to just speak on it. We must move on it, too. I write for a living and I'm running out of words to elucidate the way this heart breaks for humanity, or the lack of it. I'd like to sign off with the following quotes: Jesse Williams said it best when it comes to the police - “it's time we restructure their function in our [society]”. “If you are silent about your pain, they'll kill you and say you enjoyed it” - Zora Neale Hurston By Jas (Twitter @JasvinderGrewa1) A generation given everything: free education, golden pensions, and social mobility, have voted to strip my generation’s future. A statement, from a commenter on the Financial Times website that has been widely shared, summed up the sense of furious betrayal among the young: “The younger generation has lost the right to live and work in 27 other countries. We will never know the full extent of lost opportunities, friendships, marriages and experiences we will be denied. The older generation took freedom of movement away in a parting blow to a generation that was already drowning in the debts of its predecessors. But what I will say is that if you are young and you are experiencing feelings of fury and heartbreak about the result, you are justified in doing so. The political is personal; the way that the future weeks, months and years play out will have powerful, definable consequences on the way you live. This is one of those momentous turning points in our personal timelines; if you are pissed off, you are right to be ready drowning in the debts of its predecessors.” Affects on young people: Young people today have found themselves part of a jet-set generation. This is a group of people who have never experienced the worries of visas to live, work and travel across a common European zone and it has shaped how they see their place in the world. Free movement is an inherent part of their ethos. The EU debate leaves young people with many questions about their own futures, which few have answered thus far. The average life expectancy of someone who voted Brexit is far lower than a Remain voter, according to a CNN journalist citing apparent YouGov and ONS data, meaning that “those who must live with the result of the EU Referendum the longest want to remain”. Leader of the Liberal Democrats Tim Farron described the result as a “great injustice to future generations. Their future has been taken away by older generations,” he said, in a speech following the result. It is a tragedy that older voters, the people who have been able to benefit from European integration, have removed the opportunity for those coming behind them. For decades, young Britons have enjoyed the freedom of Europe, able to work, study and travel freely on the continent, and enjoy healthcare and other privileges while they do so. - Megan Dunn, the outgoing NUS president. “It’s possible you would need some kind of visa to work abroad and this would impact on your ability to acquire a job.” Freedom of movement across the EU currently means young people have a wider pool of graduate jobs to choose from, as more and more organisations work across Europe or specific targeted industries graduates find attractive are booming in other EU countries,” she said. Restricting freedom of movement means finding a job abroad becomes much harder for young people. If Brexit does prompt a recession, it is young people who are most likely to suffer. Research shows that graduates who enter the jobs market during a recession earn less than those who do so in a buoyant economy, and that the differential persists for years. Researchers at the Centre for European Reform (CER) note that if unemployment were to rise, it would be the under 30s who would be most vulnerable. But on a national level, a drop in immigration would not necessarily help young people looking for work because of the impact on the economy. Remain campaigners repeatedly make the point that immigrants put in more to the economy in terms of taxes than they take out. “Immigration into the UK is positive, it boosts the economy and it makes our society richer and more diverse,” said Vieru. Also, not all migrants come into the UK to do graduate-level jobs, they fill roles right across the jobs market. Leaving the EU is likely to have an impact on businesses wanting to set up and develop in the UK, and that is what will have an impact on the graduate jobs market, not immigration. The prospect of Brexit has already hurt the pound, and if sterling were to fall dramatically in the days and weeks ahead, it would have an inevitable impact on inflation, making the cost of living dearer. George Osborne’s threat of an emergency budget would take further steam out of the economy. The effect of Brexit on the economy is the key reason for many young people supporting remain. The process of the UK leaving the European Union would not be complete until late 2018 at the very earliest, assuming Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is triggered when a new prime minister is appointed in the autumn of this year. Even then, that’s just the basic settlement — trade deals and movement regulations could take decades to hammer out - Put simply: The long-term effects of Brexit will not be felt by those who overwhelmingly voted for it. Because they will be dead. This is a final middle-fingered salute to the young from the baby boomer generation. Not content with racking up insurmountable debt, not content with destroying any hopes of sustainable property prices or stable career paths, not content with enjoying the benefits of free education and generous pension schemes before burning down the ladder they climbed up, the baby boomers have given one last turd on the doorstep of the younger generation. My generation will not enjoy the free movement to 27 different countries and the workers’ rights that rescued Britain from the "sick man of Europe" era of the 1970s. For us, there will be no golden age of economic hope and glory. UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage’s sickening elation at "independence day for the United Kingdom" (surely a joke, given the context of violent colonialism that Britain herself exported to the world over the last centuries, yet sadly deadly serious) heralds nothing but a grim forecast of turmoil. It didn’t matter. The UK voters ignored them. In fact, Michael Gove, a leading figure in the Leave campaign, and a potential candidate for the next prime minister of the United Kingdom, not only said, "Britain has had enough of experts," but also likened those same experts to Nazis. There was a total and institutional rejection of the advice of economic experts by the Leave campaign. Their campaign peddled lies, and our country will pay the price. My parents voted Remain, and understand the negative consequences of Leave. But the generation before them, seem blind to what they have unleashed. They don’t see the hypocrisy of adopting a staunchly anti-immigration stance in line with the Leave campaign’s xenophobic tactics I am a member of a generation that was supposed to represent hope — we were meant to solve the problems left by the last generation, usher in an era of progressive and unified humanity. We were meant to be the people to finally harness the technological potential of the 20th century for something other than a world war. We were the eternal optimists. The United Kingdom is anything but united. With this vote, the cynicism that my generation was supposed to have left behind has been reborn. The vote will undoubtedly erode the last of any optimism that we could have carried forward from the last few years. It’s a lesson that I feel my own generation learned too late, the result of which has been apathy, a lack of political engagement, and the feeling that there is no point participating in a system that does not have our interests at heart. And so we do not vote as much as we should, or even bother to register, and then politicians continue to make policy without considering us. Because why should they tailor their policies to you, when they do not feel they need your vote? Depressingly, and despite having the power to swing the result, it is predicted that turnout among young people was low – though we won’t know exactly how low just yet – and for this we can only blame ourselves. If you are young, and especially if you voted, I hope that the outcome of this referendum doesn’t put you off voting again. Yes, as a demographic, we have lost, but at the same time we have made a powerful statement about the kind of country we want to live in. That we are to be deprived of it is a crying shame, but at least we know that we are part of a collective of people who want a better world. Don’t let that feeling dissipate; mobilise, organise, strategies, and above all hope. Take heart in the fact that you’re more than likely part of this optimistic, open-minded gang, that there is a potential there simmering beneath the surface. By all means feel bitter, and miserable, and worried about what is going to happen next, but after that, please take heart: you are the 75%, and what you voted for was noble, and one day will be again. By (Twitter - @JUUUUKES.) - For Rozina, who has motivated me to keep writing and has always pushed me to increase my knowledge, just so I can keep her up to date.
The question of democracy has been a widely debated throughout the referendum and since the results, leave campaigners have unremittingly stated that this was a democratic vote. However, if the whole leave campaign was based on lies (backtracking on the NHS and the £350 million; the economy, even immigration,) then surely it is not very democratic?
The Leavers don’t seem to have much clue about what is to happen afterwards. Curious, considering so many of them have spent their adult lives agitating for this moment. Their approach appears to be a version of Napoleon’s battle strategy: ‘On se dégage, et puis on voit.’ What exactly is Out supposed to entail? How do they picture Britain’s relationship with the EU, and with the rest of the world, after they’ve secured a vote for Exit on 23 June? That’s far from clear. Johnson in particular changes his ideas once a fortnight. Last summer, months before joining the Brexit campaign, he floated the two-referendum idea: we vote against membership on the current terms, but instead of leaving, negotiate a better deal, followed by a second referendum to endorse the improved terms. Even after he came argued for Out in February, Johnson still appeared to yearn for something along these lines. ‘EU history,’ he said, ‘shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No.’ – Well ain’t that the truth. David Cameron ridiculed this scenario: a refusal to accept the democratic implications of a vote to leave would cause an explosion of justified outrage. He would be honour-bound to activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty the next day and set in motion the procedure for the UK to leave the EU. After that there could be no looking back at Sodom. – Article 50 in fact was drafted with the idea that it would not be used, there was no vision for a vote to actually be passed, let alone entertaining the idea; thus, forming the article vague and making it difficult to exit in a smooth way. Matt Ridley, a vice-president of Vote Leave and author of The Rational Optimist, argued in the Times that trade treaties are old hat: ‘Forget treaties, almost three-quarters of British trade is already conducted without treaties anyway, under WTO rules. However enchanting the vision of a treaty-free global bazaar, any British government (in or out of the EU) will be enmeshed in the negotiation and administration of such treaties for years to come. Besides, trading successfully depends not only on tariffs or their absence but on such non-tariff barriers as trading standards, health and safety codes, patents, rules on taxation and investment: a whole network of potential impediments that a scorned EU might not hesitate to deploy against Britain, once it had ceased to be a member. Since the referumdum results, there have much talk about a model which is either similar to Norway or Canada. In regards to enjoying a full access to the Single market, which has been the topic of debate. However, it must be pointed out that. Norway and the others have the worst of both worlds: they have to obey all the rules and pay into the European budget without having any say in the making of those rules. Basing our trade model on Canada means getting rid of tariffs. But the EU-Canada treaty has already taken seven years to negotiate and isn’t yet complete, and even this arrangement may prove too burdensome and restrictive for the more red-blooded Brexiters. These uncertain conditions could lead to a flight of capital. At first it might be no more than a trickle, as big companies reassessed their priorities and decided whether to invest inside rather than outside the rump EU, or not to invest anywhere in Europe. But such flights have a habit of gathering momentum and are hard (though not impossible) to reverse. The impact on employment is hard to gauge. A welcome feature of the aftershock of the 2008 crash was the surprising extent to which employers managed to hang on to their workforces, mostly by freezing their pay. Could they repeat the trick? The Brexiters’ best card is the promise to restrict immigration and end the free movement of labour between the EU and Britain. So no more Polish plumbers and painters, no more Ukrainian pea-pickers, no more Portuguese nannies. On the other hand, it isn’t clear that British-born workers would be ready to fill the vacant slots. We could end up with the worst of both worlds: labour shortages in the South, unemployment in the North if there is a falling-off in inward investment. Or the whole thing could balance out. As with all the other calculations, we simply don’t know, which is no reason not to make them, in order to prepare policy accordingly. What we do know, pretty much for sure, is that there will be a rumpus in Scotland. Even if the Scottish government manages to hold off a second referendum on independence until the dust has settled, which I very much doubt, links between England and Scotland will be violently shaken, the already fragile confidence in the Scottish economy reduced to nothing. What remedies would the government have to revive the economy during that period? Interest rates are already at rock bottom, and any rise in government spending or cut in taxes would send the still untamed budget deficit out of control, with a further loss of confidence, which only stern measures could hope to retrieve; in other words, more so-called austerity. By (Twitter - @JUUUKES.)
@FaisalTreShah - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBNgr7aELEU
Since a very young age, I remember constantly being asked, ‘why do you fast?’ This is a natural question for those who are unaware of Ramadan and the meaning behind it, but I always remember struggling to answer. Although I was aware of all the religious benefits, I found it difficult to actually explain them to someone who was unacquainted, to me; of course it was common sense. Thus, doing some research, I have decided to focus on the reasons, which relate to society and morality. Muslims all over the world observe the annual fast from sunrise to sunset, during the ninth month of the Islamic lunar calendar, this corroborated with the celestial commandment documented in Chapter 2, Verse 185 of the Holy Qur'an. Within it, it implies guarding one's self from the bad and the imbibing of all elements of righteousness, thus reflecting the essence of piety. In its ethical dimension, it connotes moral rectitude and in its spiritual dimension it signifies purification of heart and mind. Through fasting, the human being comes to grip with their carnal self, taming their physical appetites, pacifying their greed and lust, and thus crossing a path which progressively elevates their consciousness from the physical to the moral and ultimately to the spiritual dimension of their being. This consciousness and submission is in a cultivation of self-discipline and is the ideal catalyst to improve society by improving the individual self. This type of freedom and spiritual perfection gives strength and necessitates the firm steps, which originate from fasting. This holding out against passions, enduring hunger and thirst and resisting carnal desire awaken and arouse the dormant and secret inner force, provide an exercise in self‑control and enables the human to resist and not to succumb easily to the base desires like the outburst of lust, anger and selfishness. We are always subject to being over‑whelmed by a number of misleading desires such as acquiring wealth by unlawful means, indulgence in illicit erotic contacts, licentiousness, succumbing to temptations etc. To develop this resisting power gradually one must have an occasion to fight against his desires and personal pleasures. Fast provides such an opportunity. Lastly (and this is my favourite reason,) by means of fasting we are made personally aware of the plight of the underprivileged, which thus evokes a degree of social consciousness, thus inspiring selfless acts. The person, who fasts, remembers the hunger of the poor and becomes aware of their sufferings and as a result emotions and sentiments are awakened in them, and this reduces the gap between various classes of people and reminds them to fulfil the needs of the poor. Fasting in the Holy month of Ramadan shows equality and unity because in this month the happy and poor people remain away from desires and lead similar life. In brief, those are simple reasons as to why we fast during the month of Ramadan, although there are additionally other great rewards and benefits religiously, these are the factors I decided to pinpoint in this article. For those who are observing the fast, I hope you and your family have a wonderful month and remember; you are like a plant, which grows in a dry desert. It resists when water is rare, stands steadfast against strong storms and intense cold. This means, you can deal with deprivations when you are challenged with them, and, therefore, can be firm and perseverant. (Twitter; @JUUUKES.) My darling,
Happy Anniversary. I gave up trying to find the moment in which I knew you were the woman I was going to marry. I can't find one. Nothing stands out amongst the memories. It's not your fault, it's mine. You see, the first time this thought occurred to me, I'd just watched you sing as you played the keys of a piano into life - hell if I didn't fall head over heels there and then. The second time, you turned to your right and half-smiled as you uttered “I'll see you when you get back”. The third time, we were mid conversation and you began joking about the women sitting beside us during our first date. We were endlessly amused by their fashionably late discovery of water and its varying benefits. Truth is, I remember everything about our first date, too. I remember being terribly nervous the first time we kissed; the way our hands met and I didn't stand a chance. I wanted to prove my adoration of you was rooted in more than skin-deep lust. You so put the moves on me. You showed me a photo of yourself without make up – I told you “it's a face I'd love to wake up to”. I wasn't lying, I still love waking up beside you. Fourth time and it was Sunday morning. I heard your footsteps as you sauntered down the stairs and walked into the kitchen. Needless to say, your beauty remained effortlessly stunning. You filled the cafetière with boiling water and pulled me away from the dishes I was washing. You were wearing a slip on. Red, satin. God, it didn't even look slept in. Smooth as your lingerie felt to touch, my hands refused to sink any lower than your hips – I had absolutely no intention of letting go until you pointed out “the tap is still running”. The moments were ceaseless and I haven't stopped falling in love with you. Do you remember the T-Shirt I gave you? The one you wore the other night with the slogan 'cute enough to take your breath away, skilled enough to give it back' strewn across the front. I'd waited months for it to be released and as soon as it went on sale with the ICMS convention, I bought it. You stole my t-shirt. I explained “it's my favourite one and I want it back when we're married”. We tied the knot and you still haven't returned it. However, you sleep in the t-shirt sometimes which feels like a fair compromise. I think you've shrunk it over the years. Though, it still drops just over halfway down a rather peachy bum. Just like every other shirt, tie or tracksuit bottom you've stolen from my wardrobe – it wears better on you than me. It's three years to the day we got married. Despite any miscommunication and everything we lost in translation, we continued to build together. We learned how to speak in complete honesty; the truth never destroyed us. We forged our foundations in transparency and it hasn't shaken yet, nor will it. I know it's not always fun. The stress from our careers have, at times, weighed heavily upon us. We have argued and fought and learned we are stronger than these bumps in the road. Still, the idea of you standing beside myself as I become a surgeon, as I specialise and go on to cure Alzheimer's has pushed me through sleepless nights. It has stood as my shield when the prospect of fighting death on a daily basis has threatened to swallow me whole. I promised we'd build a Mosque one day and a Gurdwara, a Church and a Mandir. We will also travel this world together, hike mountains and sail seas. Hands clasped whilst we marvel at wonders and explore the farthest reaches of land. I'd stopped writing shortly after we met. You were home and I felt like I belonged. However, amongst all the serenity I found in your company they still wanted me to write. I refused to write on tranquillity until you taught me grace and joy are as full of beauty as pain and anguish. You gave reason to shine a light at the end of tunnels others are still making their way through. I said nothing stands out. Tell me, how do you decide which part of a masterpiece is your favourite? I stopped living for moments and began to appreciate everything you are in your entirety. I want to be the consistency in your life; to show you're not impossible to love. I'm willing to spend my life by your side to prove it. We connected organically and birthing the beauty between us was no easy task. We still work at it. We still blossom. You still flourish. I know it's not been an easy year. However, you will always be my best friend, my Lioness and my Queen. Once again, happy anniversary sweetheart. From an 'absolute cactus' of a husband, eternally yours, Jas x - Written by Jas (Twitter @JasvinderGrewa1.) If you ask me if I'm a 'feminist', I'd say yes. However, firstly I would feel obliged to clarify the meaning of this question with the person asking it, as I think the word 'feminism' is somewhat misleading to what the word really defines. I would say yes to this question, I'd say yes with hesitation though, it would take a few moments of thought and thorough consideration too. My congenital intuition and culturally ingrained instinct to act with masculinity and avoid sounding 'soft' or 'wet' would stop me from answering this question.
My will to sound masculine as a 20 year-old heterosexual male would almost impede me from openly saying 'Yes, I am a feminist'. Am I an advocate for 'women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes'? Well yeah, of course I am, it benefits people I love like my Mum, Sister, Aunties, Grandmother etc! Although true and simply a natural reaction to such a question, it is myopic to suggest feminism is solely beneficial to Women. I believe patriarchal governments and media outlets (such as The Sun) are regressive evolutionarily and socially for Males and Females alike. I think my young brothers would benefit mentally from not having the degradation and objectifying of young women on online porn and page three of The Sun shoved in there innocent, cherubic faces. The same way I think young Females would benefit mentally and socially from not feeling as though they need to achieve 'body goals' by looking as much like Beyonce and as little like themselves as possible. Anyway the point of this (almost) succinct piece is to pertinently emphasise my belief that the word 'Feminism' is an impediment to gender equality. My reasoning behind this comes from my own aforementioned hesitation to admit that I am a feminist, I can't help but think other young men like myself would be put off of this righteous idea by the effeminate nature of the term 'feminism'. The term itself could be as equally misleading to young teenage females as it could be for the young teenage males, could it perhaps lead young naive men and women into thinking it means the superiority of females? Could this word potentially breed chauvinists of both sexes, making men objective to the term and women stronger proponents of a word neither sex truly understands? Could this word subconsciously encourage the rise of FEMale chauvINISTS and encourage Male opposition to this. My point is; I strongly support the equality of men and women but I believe we could use a word more relevant to the definition of 'feminism' and with less of a pernicious effect to the progression of equality intended by those who champion it. So is a word that encourages young men to object to it's definition on the grounds of their own insecurity useful to us? Is it useful to breed Male chauvinists and Female chauvinists with a word that misleads them. Let's not redefine Feminism; Feminism by definition is a beautiful concept. It's misleading terminology is progressive for our negative, atavistic aspects and regressive for true gender equality, in my opinion. - Written by Floyd Smith (Twitter: @effstream.) As the Conservative won the elections last year, it had raised a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on whether Britain should remain a member of the European Union. The vote is presumed to be held before June 23rd 2016, and could potentially open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ leading to the collapse of the European project. David Cameron has since tried to negotiate relationships between the UK and EU, and has vowed to keep Britain in this Union. However, members of his own cabinet will go against him to vote out of the EU. Whilst tackling this subject and giving you reasons as to why we should not leave, I will be breaking it down in social and economic/political factors.
Most people that say “leave the EU,” never really explain what they mean, they tend to portray an unrealistic view that ‘everything will come together and be perfect.’ Yet, one must remember, a politician (namely Nigel Farage,) that is trying to sell an idea never gives all the details. So, what is UKIP actually proposing? Many of the optimistic scenarios, (my favourite one being, “no immigrants or migration!” Which majority of the people who are oppose to the stay uses,) is not guaranteed, nor is it credible. Take the migration example; there is no evidence to the remark made by Nigel Farage. Under his suggested system, there will be no restriction on EU members coming into the UK (EU family members, workers, students, they will all have the right to live in the UK.) Pro-EU campaigner Mr McGrory said: "Right now, Britain has the best of both worlds. We have an opt-out from the passport-free Schengen area, while still enjoying full access to the single market. The Leave campaigns haven't produced a shred of evidence to show how they could guarantee a deal that is at least as good if we left.” The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford said if it became harder for employers to recruit EU workers they may try to bring in more migrants from outside Europe. So, unfortunately for those that are relying on the leave to get rid of immigrants, there is likely to be an increase. But what happens to peace and democracy? The EU has secured peace among past warring Western European countries, it has helped consolidate democracy in Spain, Portugal, Greece and previous Soviet bloc countries and has safeguarded peace in the Balkans since the end of the war. Thus, in regards to security, in a letter released by No 10, military figures including, Lord Bramall and Jock Stirrup (chiefs of defence staff,) contend that the EU is an "increasingly important pillar of our security", especially at a time of instability in the Middle East and in the face of "resurgent Russian nationalism and aggression". Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has likewise said the UK benefits from being part Europe, in addition to Nato and the United Nations. "It is through the EU that you exchange criminal records and passenger records and work together on counter-terrorism," he said. "We need the collective weight of the EU when you are dealing with Russian aggression or terrorism." The irony really is that, the same people that are constantly arguing about the protection from IS and other extremist groups are the same people who want to leave. Looking at sovereignty the question really remains on whether the UK will truly be sovereign despite the possibilities of leaving the EU, and as indicated by our cabinet minister, that is just an ‘illusion.’ “Of course there are those who would like Britain to have – not simply the illusion, but the fact – of being a self-governing nation again, where our parliament and courts are absolutely supreme again,” Michael Fallon told BBC Radio 4’s programme. The real question is, where is the evidence that the UK will ever go back to a complete sovereign country? Surely this implies the Monarch must regain all of her power, which evidently is diminishing, and the greater part of the power is within the legislature (Parliament;) thus implying that the EU does not impact the sovereignty of Britain. Naturally, this means sovereignty really has nothing to do with the EU. Despite joining the EU, it did not put a strain on sovereignty as much as people think it had; for instance, section 2 of the European Communities Act 1973, explains that although EU law is supreme, sovereignty still lies in Queen and parliament (Lord Denning in Macarathies case.) Fallon later explains that “if we got back to the ‘golden age’ where our parliament is absolutely sovereign, you would still have the European Union next door, taking decisions that affect our trade and businesses and our way of life.” This swiftly moves us onto the economic impacts of leaving the EU. One of the biggest advantages of the EU is free trade between member nations, making it easier and cheaper for British companies to export their goods to Europe. Business leaders think the boost to income outweighs the billions of pounds in membership fees Britain would save if it left the EU. The UK also risks losing some of its negotiation power internationally by leaving the trading bloc[1]. To make it simple:
That was just on a macro level, in regards to micro, one must look at the individuals living in the UK, who are depending on the EU and the economic impacts on them. Around 3.5 million British jobs are directly linked to British membership of the European Union’s single market (that’s 1 in 10 British jobs!) Now lets focus on all of those students who aspire to work abroad, and those that already are; free movement of people across the EU opens up job opportunities for UK workers willing to travel. It also makes it relatively easy for UK companies to employ workers from other EU countries. Ukip says this prevents the UK "managing its own borders". But, writing for the LSE, Professor Adrian Favell says limiting this freedom would deter the "brightest and the best" of the continent from coming to Britain, create complex new immigration controls and reduce the pool of candidates employers can choose from, (who knows we may even lose out on the person who can cure cancer!) Still focusing on the individual, what happens to the prices of all of those veggies and other food you expect to buy from the supermarket? David Cameron said fresh analysis from the Treasury proposes the estimation of the pound could fall by 12% after a vote to leave the Brussels club. Such a decrease in the benefit of sterling would increase the cost of food imports and include more than £220 a year to the expense of food for a family of four within only two years[2]. The real question is, do you have a real reason as oppose to ‘immigration,’ to be paying an extra £220 a year? There are thousands of reasons with reference to why we ought not leave and how it would open up a Pandora’s box, and additionally making a contrary domino effect; equally, there are individuals who will give you reasons as to why we should leave. As always, these are my strong opinions, which are unmistakably predisposition; I believe the reasons to stay outweigh the reasons to leave. Something for you to consider on is whether Britain truly will be more grounded and sovereign if we leave; as indicated by The Economist Britain would still be liable to the political issues and economic aspects of Europe, but would no longer have a seat at the table to try to influence matters. - (Twitter: @JUUUKES.) [1] http://www.theweek.co.uk/eu-referendum [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3603306/Family-food-bill-soar-220-year-quit-EU-warns-David-Cameron-high-street-bosses-warn-catastrophic-consequences-Brexit.html |