Search

Movies are considered as the visual representation of the world that we are living in. No one dislikes watching movies. But do we understand one thing that the audience gets so much engaged in a particular story that they forget the real world? The audience seems to be in a fantasy world where even if the movie shows a controversial story or a morally incorrect plotline, people seem to be okay with it. None of the stories exist in a vacuum and it is the utmost responsibility of the filmmaker, directors, and producers to show something legal, relevant, and acceptable by the audience at large. However, they struggle to strike that balance. Starring Rani Mukherjee and Shadaab Khan in Raja ki Aayegi Baraat directed by Ashok Gaikwad in 1997, this movie was a super hit and was accepted by a wide audience. There was no question raised regarding the story of the movie and how did the filmmaker think of producing such movies. The movie showed the lead hero Shadaab Khan as Raja who is a rapist. He rapes Mala cast by Rani Mukherjee. However, the court ordered Mala to marry Raja. This is a very false representation of the court shown where a vague judgment is given. The same situation and same sort of story were shown in the movie "Benaam Badsha" starring Anil Kapoor and Juhi Chawla. Anil Kapoor as Deepak grows up abandoned and rapes Jyoti portraying Juhu Chawla on her wedding day. However, to a great surprise, Jyoti tries to reform him and as a result, decides to move in with him. Marital rape is something that is still largely untouched by the filmmaker. There are other controversial movies like Provoked and Saath Khoon Maaf which portrayed sexual violence in marriage. Raja ki Aayegi Baraat and Benaam Badshah portrayed an unacceptable story. The place where victims and accused come and seek their trials and bails, how can such movies show that justice has given the order to marry the rapist's victim. To everyone's surprise, the movie portrayed the victim to be agreeing to the fact of marrying her rapist. There was one more South Indian hit movie that was dubbed and remade in Bollywood known as "Tejaswini" which portrayed a similar situation. The question which arises is why didn't these movies show the rigorous punishment of the rapists? Why didn't the filmmaker show the victory of the victim who fought amongst the odds and her rapist leads to imprisonment? The answer to this is we are only focussing on why and not how laws have been amended and repealed. We must agree to the fact that movies in the 70s,80s, and 90s cannot be similar. Controversies and questions might have been raised at that time but as technology is increasing, the mindset of people is changing and movies at present times are quite different and even portray a very strong meaning. Legal Actions Before beginning, the law says "Sex by husband is not rape, it does not matter if it is without consent or forcefully". The word marital rape is having sexual intercourse with own spouse without consent or by compelling or danger. Section 375 of the Indian Penal code is rape. According to the Indian penal Code, marital rape constitutes a punishment of up to 15 years. Marital rape may not have a specific place in the legislature, but IPC has not excluded marital rape from its definition of rape as said in Article 145. Rape along with spousal rape is very much illegal and constitutes 8 years of punishment. There should be an extra-legal step if the rapist agrees to marry the victim which has no specific mention in law till now. Role of Media and Entertainment laws As movies play a very important part in my life, so do the media and entertainment laws. Under Article 19 (1) (A) Film laws in India, such kinds of films should be banned. It guarantees freedom of speech and expression as extended to the press. Thus it is regulated under this constitution. It even falls under the censorship of films as the movies portrayed something offensive. The role of these laws is to protect the freedom of expression, media freedom, and technical standards. Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is the procedure to examine the film before the release. Every movie should be checked along with the storyline before the release. The movies must be made in a way that conveys a positive message and a moral value to be remembered for the rest of life. If any wrong is shown as it was in Raja ki Aayegi Baraat and Benaam Badshah, such movies should have a legal injunction. There might not be any specific section under media or entertainment laws but the Indian Penal Code, Copyright play a very important part. Under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, a person who is found guilty of a violation for exhibiting movies that can violate someone's rights is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 1/-lakh, or with both. The Broadcasting Agency should also note or take care about such stories which are portrayed in the movies. Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act gives guidance in certifying films that can be released and shown to the audience. Even the central government has the right to suspend films if it is a violation. Then why not such films? It might be because at those times, there were no strict laws or differences in mindset or people were very less concerned about such things shown in movies and analyzing them with reality. Conclusion Provoked and Lipstick under my Burkha are such movies that showed the ill sides and horror abuse of marital rape where it is merely not a crime in India. Marital rape though constitutes a crime but does not have a mention in the constitution. And this is the advantage which is taken by those criminals in finishing the life of a victim. Any husband can rape a wife who is above 15 years old, then what laws would help her? How will she come out from the dark web? To sum up, such movies must be created which portray the rape victim as fearless and bold and coming out of such thing. The movies must be made in comparison to the old blockbuster hits which showed a wrong thing and hence should portray the victim as a fighter. Law is blind and so are the filmmakers. It's high time now for the legislature to make a strict section particularly for marital rape otherwise such kinds of movies would come out and it must be agreed that it is such a disrespectful thing even for justice as the movies portrayed courts giving this kind of unfair order. 32 countries of the world have not yet criminalized marital rape, amongst which one of them is India. The thing doesn't end here. There have been petitions filed to make marital rape an offense but no actions were taken. A woman filed a petition in 2015, to declare marital rape an offense, but the apex court stated: "law should not change for one woman". In the case of Arnesh Kumar vs the State of Bihar, the court stated that if marital rape is criminalized, the social and family life system will be collapsed. Even if remedies are available for women, marital rape should be criminalized and made a criminal offense such as in countries like Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bhutan, Bulgaria, etc. The UN Committee too recommended that the goverment should criminalize marital rapes.

By Will Allen It seems like a given rule that presidents are expected to seek re-election. There are just six examples of incumbent presidents who haven’t run for a second term – which makes it a highly unusual exercise to even question whether the incumbent should run again. However, America isn’t sticking to this time-honoured rule with Joe Biden, who is still yet to announce his re-election bid (although it appears imminent). Just about everyone has an opinion, and surprisingly many – even those in his own party – are stating Biden shouldn’t run. Personally, I am not one of those people. I think the debate over Biden and his now impending re-election bid have gotten out of hand. Biden should run again because, well, he’s the president and he’s doing a good job. There are of course cases where presidents should not run for re-election. The most obvious case to argue against the incumbent’s re-election is if they are deeply unpopular, which of course Biden is not. Tracking Biden in the polls reveals that he is by no means a wildly popular president. But critically neither is Biden wildly unpopular – according to Fivethirtyeight’s aggregate of approval ratings from various pollsters, approval of Biden sits at around 43%. That figure isn’t terrific, it is a lower rating than the last three presidents to get re-elected. But the metric isn’t something we should be running to to discredit the current president’s electability. Biden’s approval rating currently is higher than Ronald Reagan’s was at this point in time and Reagan went on to win his re-election bid – so why can’t Biden? And we should also acknowledge that Biden’s approval rating has been on the move – with Biden steadily becoming more popular since last summer. His approval gap has narrowed from a +19.0 to +7.8, which should encourage democrats that the president definitely isn’t out of the running. Critics should also be mindful of what they are asking for – a democrat who isn’t Joe Biden. Let’s say they get what they want, who would they want as a nominee instead of the president? The options are seemingly endless, and a viable candidates simply won’t emerge until the day Biden ever said he wasn’t running – which presents a problem. Do they want his vice president Kamala Harris? How about Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, or some other centrist? What about a progressive like Elizabeth Warren armed with plans? In the end it appears the answer would most likely be Kamala Harris, but this only invites the same questions that critics are posing to Biden – her polling isn’t strong. In fact, it’s currently weaker than the man they don’t want to run again in 2024. However, this problem isn’t just specific to Harris, most of the polling shows that the slew of potential democratic candidates are weaker than Biden. Democrats should also fear a replacement because it means navigating an open primary – an event that would be a disaster. Primaries at the best of times are time consuming, extremely expensive, and exhaustive to the party apparatus. Holding one a mere handful of months out from the 2024 election is not a smart move if you are concerned with winning a gruelling general election, let alone a brutal Senate map. A primary to replace Biden would undoubtedly draw candidates from far and wide into the race, inviting a set of brutal debates that will fracture what is currently a united party under Biden’s leadership. A primary then will divert the party’s attention and money from doing the very thing Biden’s chief critics want – winning the presidency. Aside from party politics, Biden also has a record to run on in 2024. In his first two years, despite the frequent infuriating actions of some within his party, Biden passed a lot of legislation – and by a lot I mean a heck of a lot. Biden kicked off his presidency with the American Rescue Plan, which laid the groundwork for the country’s strong economic progress since emerging from the pandemic in 2021. In his first two years in office Biden has overseen the creation of 12 million jobs, more than any president created in a full four-year term. Unemployment is at historic lows, job hiring remains persistently strong and the United States has managed, against all odds, to avoid a deeply damaging recession many economists predicted – in large part due to the strength of the ARP that Biden championed. The American Rescue Plan also included provisions like the expanded child tax credit, which slashed child poverty by 30%. We should all give credit where credit is due, and Biden deserves a lot of credit for the economic outlook that presents itself today. Biden has also passed a lot more than just the American Rescue Plan. He eventually signed a second transformational reconciliation package into law, the Inflation Reduction Act – which pumps billions of dollars into investing in the fight against climate change. The legislation also cut the costs of prescription drugs for those on Medicare. If you need an idea of just how powerful this provision has been, just look to the fact it has since pushed the largest producers of insulin to finally cut costs for every American, not just those on Medicare. Aside from these truly historic bills, Biden has signed bipartisan legislation on infrastructure, gun control reform and science funding to counter the rise of China in strategic sectors. When held up by congress Biden hasn’t sat idly by, he’s picked up his pen and signed countless executive orders. These orders tackle issues such as gun violence, reproductive rights and of course student debt forgiveness. Despite debt cancelation being held up in litigation, Biden has still managed to do things such as increase the maximum value of Pell Grants. As it stands his legislative record is one of the most transformational in recent history – and as one democratic strategist stated, “If any other president had his record of accomplishments, this wouldn’t even be a question”. Of course, Biden’s record isn’t perfect, there was Afghanistan, the most recent go-ahead for the ‘Willow’ project in Alaska and other blunders. But critics should again be mindful that no president’s record is perfect, and on balance Biden’s makes him a remarkably successful president. However, America’s chief concern over whether Biden should run again stems from the fact he’s 80, an octogenarian. This is of course entirely fair to question to level – should the oldest president ever elected (who is only getting older) seek a second term? After all, the presidency is not an easy job, it’s gruelling. It’s a job which demands the president’s full attention every hour of every day for four long years – Biden’s age brings into question whether he can handle such a job. By the end of a second term Biden would be well into his 80s (86), an age which calls into question a whole range of things such as physical fitness, mental decline, even that of death. Death and mental decline are notattractive things, and it’s not easy to rebut them because they are not trivial things at all. The best we can say is that Biden remains in remarkably good health (according to his White House doctor he has remarkably low levels of cholesterol and shows no signs of mental decline). There are also no signs of earlier brain aneurysms making any reoccurrence, despite what his critics say. As a result, we can only rest on the advice and findings Biden’s doctor gives to the president – which currently make the case he is fit to run. If signs of mental decline were to set in, which we can only ever speculate about, the line at which intervention occurs is not a clear cut one which presents a difficulty. There is however, the 25th Amendment, which provides a backstop against the overarching danger mental decline presents in a president. As it stands the amendment looks like it won’t ever be needed. Yet it remains there for Kamala Harris, his much younger vice president, to become acting president if such a scenario ever unfolds. In a perfect world, it might be healthy for democrats to continue airing out questions over whether Biden should run – that time is however up. Democrats need to put this question to rest. If they want to win in 2024, Biden is quite simply the best shot they have at retaining the presidency. Despite qualms about his age, he has a commanding legislative record to sell and a united party to help him – they should let him run.

According to Grand View Research, the global AI market size is predicted to reach $1,811.8 billion by 2030, up from $136.6 billion in 2022 with a CAGR of 38.1%. While there are many misconceptions regarding AI and the potential developments that it may lead to, it is essential to analyse the reasons for many companies investing in this technology. A study by IBM found that at present approximately 77 per cent of companies are either using AI or exploring AI for further research into implementation. This editorial piece aims to explore the debate surrounding the fear as a consequence of artificial intelligence and provide the argument that it generates a net positive result. Origins of Artificial Intelligence Criticism of AI is not new, it has been the case since its advent in the 1940s. Alan Turing was the first to implicitly evoke the idea of machines improving and modifying their own program under his stored-program concept. The famous “Turing Test” conducted in 1950, was essential in understanding intelligent behavior. In his paper, Turing described the experiment as an imitation game, whereby the computer must provide answers that closely resemble that of a human being. With an interrogator present in a separate disclosed room, they were required to distinguish between the human and computer subjects solely on the responses received to a set of posed questions. Scientists to date debate whether passing the Turing test should be considered the perfect tool for computers exhibiting “intelligence.” The term “Artificial Intelligence” was then coined in 1955 by John McCarthy, a computer and cognitive scientist. He would later rightly be known as the father of artificial intelligence for also developing the first computer language for symbolic computation, used in a multitude of areas within the field of AI. The period between 1974 to 1980, however, was shadowed as the “AI Winter” due to governments' collapse in funding. This was spurred by the culmination of the oil crisis along with the loss of faith in AI, as it failed to meet expectations. Use-Cases and Benefits At present with greater infrastructure, AI can be used for task expedition, improved coordination, and feed into the demands of a new leisure society. The impact can be observed in various value chains within businesses including manufacturing, retail, education, and healthcare. For example, Mckinsey Global Insititute Analysis observed that the current use-case of AI as a prediction tool through machine learning has led to a 13 per cent improvement in EBIT for manufacturing. This was mainly achieved by automating the procurement processes and using AI for better R&D procedures. AI also consequently contributed to enriching the overall user experiences by reducing costs, which resulted in less levied burdens on the market prices. In this particular case, fuel savings were boosted by 12 per cent through the employment of optimized flight routes for transportation. In healthcare, an AI software developed by researchers at Houston Methodist Research Institute, increased accuracy to 99 per cent and speed by 30 times, more than that of a human doctor in reviewing mammograms. The Chair of the Department of Systems Medicine and Bioengineering at the institute said, “This software intelligently reviews millions of records in a short amount of time, enabling us to determine breast cancer risk more efficiently using a patient's mammogram.” This is crucial because as per the American Cancer Society, in reality, a high number of diagnoses can yield false-positive results. Therefore the use of AI in such situations can avoid patients from undergoing unnecessary invasive procedures or biopsies. Healthcare in the near future will need to cope with the increasing workforce demands, and maintain a level of sustainability. By 2030, there would be a shortfall of an estimated 10 million physicians, nurses, and midwives globally over the same period, mostly in low- and lower-middle-income countries, according to the World Health Organization. Such gaps can be met with the adoption and scaling of AI solutions to reduce hours spent on administrative or routine tasks. Companies, including Content Technologies and Carnegie Learning, are examples of AI deployment in education. These digital platforms are constructed to use the individualised learning approach and to add customisations at par with the students’ respective understanding levels. With greater advancements in this tech, such tailored styles could become the norm, especially aiding those with undiagnosed learning disabilities. In 2015, John F. Pane and his colleagues at RAND Corp. found that 11,000 students at 62 schools had greater gains in mathematics and reading when they used individualised learning plans (ILP), as compared to others in a more traditional setting. While this remains to be the most comprehensive study to date, with more concentration on AI technology, barriers can be eliminated for rounded research to further understand such benefits. Through video and image analytics, criminal justice can be improved by providing investigative assistance. Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), a deep learning algorithm, is developed to increase accuracy in image classification. Apart from facial recognition, forensic laboratories can use AI in DNA testing to process degraded evidence after long periods of time. Recently, Forensic and National Security Science Institute (FNSSI) professors, Micheal Marciano and Jonathan Adelman were the first to invent a novel hybrid machine learning approach (MLA) that provides high-confidence results. Internet companies like PayPal have also relied on AI for identifying fraud attempts by training their algorithms to detect anomalies in patterns or new patterns. Addressing Concerns As the decision-making role of AI increases within institutions, there is a fear surrounding the accompanied risks. Even with more complex programs, the data often reflects past inequities thereby causing interferences through unwanted biases. A study conducted by Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru at MIT concluded that facial analysis tech has a lesser success rate with minorities, especially women, due to a lack of available training data. However, progress is being made to rectify such system errors through either pre-processing or post-processing techniques. For example, Silvia Chiappa, a research scientist at DeepMind, developed a path-specific counterfactual method that takes into account the effect on outcomes due to sensitive attributes. Governing bodies such as the European Commission proposed the Artificial Intelligence Act in 2021, to introduce a safety framework and to prevent any unethical prejudices. Fear stemming from the advancement in AI can be attributed to the myth of catastrophic superintelligence, usually due to the media consumed. The human-like qualities instill the misconception that it may one day replace mankind, however, these are purely irrational and impractical in the real world. AI can be considered a disruptive technology, only in the progressive sense as it streamlines processes and provides greater efficiency within organisations.

By Evie Taylor The start of the 2020s provided an opportunity for newly invigorated efforts to combat the climate crisis. The 2015 Paris Agreement, borne out of COP21, highlighted the years preceding 2030 as a vital period for environmental protection, signalling this time as the last opportunity to prevent the planet from reaching a number of tipping points that would cause irreparable environmental damage. The annual COP meetings have facilitated the platform for a united global response to climate change, giving political leaders no excuse to avoid collaborative action. Yet the political response to this global emergency to date has been characterised by greenwashing, empty promises and insufficient targets. The first three years of this decade have starkly exposed that those figureheads around the world who possess the greatest power to influence climate policy are determined to avoid accountability: either denying the gravity of the crisis as explained by scientists, or concerning themselves only with performative action, to give the public impression that they care, without actually having to make the sacrifices necessary to protect the planet. The greenwashing at COP27 proved that the greatest shared concern amongst those with the most power to introduce change (specifically political leaders of Global North countries and the bosses of companies emitting the highest levels of pollution) is avoiding accountability, rather than actually working towards constructive change. If we look at those people in positions with the most power to incite environmental policy changes, there is little hope for 2023 to be the year in which the world rallies together to take urgent action. But, fortunately, beyond the people in power who are burying their heads in the sand as we rocket towards climate disaster, there is a rapidly growing movement of people turning their climate anxiety into climate action. When we look outside of the sphere of political inaction, we find real evidence of community networks being forged around the world, rallying together to combat the climate crisis. Whilst these communities are composed of people from all generations, they are overwhelmingly being led by young activists, who are recognising and exposing the insufficient action that is being taken on a governmental level. Gen-Z are taking on the responsibility of spearheading campaigns for change and their efforts are quickly gaining momentum. Based on the environmental track record of this generation to date, we can anticipate that 2023 will see an inspiring surge in youth-led climate activism. It should come as no great surprise that many Gen-Z youth are feeling overwhelming anxiety about the environment, as the climate crisis has rapidly accelerated during their lifetimes. They have not grown up with the privilege that older generations have had of being able to exploit the planet, burning through fossil fuels, and accumulating masses of non-recyclable waste, without worrying about how this will impact their futures. People born in the late 1990s and 2000s are becoming acutely aware that global leaders are underdelivering on already lacklustre climate goals, knowing that it is not our current political leaders and big-business CEOs who will bear the brunt of the climate crisis. Younger generations are already experiencing the worst effects of the climate crisis because of the uncertainty it casts over their futures. There is little to no support for young people, to help them manage this anxiety, with school curriculums still tending to only offer a brief address of the topic in geography or science class. According to a 2021 investigation into climate anxiety, published in The Lancet Planetary Health journal, 75% of young people in the US identify their worry about climate change as between moderate to extreme. Meanwhile a 2019 poll by the Washington Post found that just 14% of teenagers reported being given the chance to learn about climate solutions in school. Similarly, in the UK, Save the Children reported that 70% of children feel anxiety about environmental damage. The rise of social media in the 2010s, combined with the lack of education in schools, gave way to what has become commonly known as ‘climate doomism’, as the sharing of an overwhelming amount of information on what is a pretty bleak reality gave young people little reason for hope for the future. However, recent years have seen an increasing level of self-awareness amongst young people that this doomism is not constructive, and thus a shift towards taking to social media to self-educate and empower themselves by sharing information that can help to inspire action. University of Bath environmental psychologist, Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh has identified a link between climate concerns and taking effective action, highlighting that angst and uncertainty is being channelled into an innovative force for good. Californian Gen-Z climate activist, Zahra Biabani, who uses her online platform to spread climate optimist content that bridges the doomist “gap between education and action” explains that “climate education can be debilitating without a form of encouragement to act, especially when we see what’s going on in the world, and how it’s going to get worse”. Zahra claims that many young people are motivated to work to save the planet, not accept its demise. Young environmental leaders like Zahra are forging a new and empowering path for Gen-Z to follow, recognising the reality of the crisis but also looking for hope, to inspire change. Aside from using their voices to protest against government inaction and expose the political and business leaders who are fueling greenwashing, reports show that Gen-Z are also making lifestyle changes more rapidly than other age demographics, like turning plant-based at a rate that is faster than any other generation. Whilst change could be actioned much more easily by those in positions of economic and political power, positions which are overwhelmingly made up of a much older demographic, the reality is clear that this simply is not happening. Gen-Z are learning that festering in the anxiety caused by this inaction does not change anything. They are actioning a bottom-up response to a global issue, taking responsibility for an issue created by the generations that preceded them. Greta Thunberg arguably represents the figurehead for Gen-Z climate action, after her ‘School Strikes for Climate’, which she began undertaking in 2018, aged just 15, gained global traction. Thunberg founded Fridays for Future, moving her individual school strike into a worldwide endeavour. By November of 2019, over 17,000 students from 24 different countries had participated in school strikes for climate. She famously addressed world leaders at the United Nations, giving a damning speech about their present inaction, really highlighting that today’s youth are shouldering the burden of the climate crisis. Thunberg has made no secret of her fear and anxiety surrounding the climate crisis. But rather than let herself become paralysed by that fear, she has drawn global attention to the realities that politicians around the world have consistently tried to underplay. This global attention has both held leaders to account and inspired other young people to make their own environmental initiatives. 12 year old Lilly, who spoke to BBC Newsround, described being inspired to start Lilly’s Plastic Pickup after watching a video of one of Greta Thunberg’s speeches. Lilly said: “I realised we can’t just keep on naming dates when we can stop it. No, we have to stop it now”. The ripple effect of Greta Thunberg’s activism is being felt among young people like Lilly, who are not just taking onboard her speeches but actually using this information to enact changes in their own circles. Gen-Z activism has also emphasised the reality that current leaders in the Global North do not want to confront: the climate crisis is not just a future issue, it is causing devastation right now, which is overwhelmingly impacting people who have been historically exploited by groups who hold more power than them. This is due to an array of different identity factors, but primarily race, nationality and socio-economic status. The term ‘intersectionality’ is becoming a buzz-word for younger generations, used to understand and explain how the interaction of different identity factors culminates to dictate a person’s privilege. Gen-Z climate activism has not just focused on the concerns of those in privileged positions, whose voices are typically the most likely to be heard. As we move into a new year, we confront the reality that the time left to change the course of the climate crisis is rapidly dwindling away. But where there is fear, there is also hope. Younger generations are stepping up to the plate and undertaking the work that politicians are refusing to do. Knowing that their future depends on climate action, Gen-Z are not going down without a fight.

By Drishti Patel As a society, due to the advances in medical research and technology, it is inevitable that we are able to better identify and label our problems and symptoms. Good, right? We are becoming more aware and educated about the way that the human body works, scientifically, giving a reason for the way that the body functions. Whilst this is something that is exciting and intriguing for all, with the chance to build on our knowledge and help ourselves, it is becoming more and more common that we, as individuals, are becoming more hyperaware of ourselves and our health. In fact, we are now using social media and online sources to help us diagnose ourselves, focusing on small and minute problems we may notice. These, whilst on the surface, seem like really small issues, are having a massive effect on the healthcare system itself and individuals too. With the pressure growing on the NHS, the added fears of patients generally, continue to add more weight to the waiting lists for diagnosis. With the lack of staff within the NHS system, it continues to grow further and further, leaving many vulnerable and helpless. Let us begin by discussing the effect that hyperawareness has on one’s health in the UK. It is common that approximately 1 in 20 people have some type of anxiety difficulty at any one time in terms of health anxiety. This is rising as we talk due to the reliance that people have on Dr Google which has increased because of the lack of comfort individuals have felt in seeing a GP or the need to seek comfort as soon as possible to feel relief. With Google being at the tip of our fingertips, it is one of the easiest ways to find all sorts of information without leaving your comfort zone. However, due to the vast amount of information available, it only goes to show the most common to the rarest types of illnesses, leaving many questioning and doubting their well-being, leaving many spiralling, worrying about their health and then prospering to worry and anxiety. With the adaptation of online consultations (especially the heavy reliance on this during the pandemic and even post-COVID-19), and long waiting lines to see the GPs alone, online consultations with Dr Google have become one way in which people have been able to find some peace and autonomy in being able to care for themselves as well as find the ‘answers’ straight away. This is surely not too bad and we can all think of a time when we have found comfort in researching a certain thing to gain clarity and some relief. However, the complete reliance on and full belief in online information has a massive impact on individuals. These tend to cause a lack of trust in medical staff due to the reliance on these platforms which, in some cases, leave patients thinking that the healthcare professionals are lying to them. Nevertheless, Dr Google is not the only devil out there that continues to sell these horrifying dreams to patients. As we have entered the age of social media (or at least the expansion of social media use), we see the mass use of TikTok and Instagram and the growing audience they have. The New York Times found that people are using the TikTok app as a search engine, trying to build more knowledge and see the different opinions on the topics they want to find out more about. Medical students, surgeons and other professionals are also sharing information on the human body and well-being with their audience, feeding the viewers sometimes with more ‘signs’ to look out for and making individuals hyperaware of their bodies. Seems like a good idea, people becoming aware of many health conditions like Jameela Jamil sharing her own experiences and spreading awareness of Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) has helped to make people more aware and mindful that some struggles are not as easily displayed or explained. Similarly, the awareness that has been built for ADHD and trying to understand the neurological disorder has helped many get diagnosed and understand behaviours better. Notwithstanding, with this, you have content creators creating challenges like ‘put your fingers down if…’ that tend to describe or present vague symptoms that may be experienced by patients, planting a seed of doubt in people’s minds and then leading to the cycle of doubt and spiralling (in some cases) where individuals are either convinced and see their GPs for more information on these issues. The concern is not that we are becoming more caring with our bodies, but it is the fact that there is a growing pattern of self-diagnosing and not believing the medical professionals, making it difficult for the services trying to provide healthcare. A personal account shared by Ibrahim Mohamed, also known fondly online as Ibz Mo, about his ADHD diagnosis shared that the waiting list for being diagnosed was over two years and ended up going private. For many, paying a large sum for a diagnosis is something that they cannot afford, which further disadvantages some. In most cases, it continually leads to affecting the ability of the quality of work that can be done by the individual. There is a growing ‘fashion’ of self-diagnosing due to the growing impact that social media is having on individuals. Social media is great for starting or expanding conversations and exposure so that these areas have more support and the wider society is more aware. Dr Nighat Ariff has been creating more awareness in the area of female Healthcare, especially in reducing the stigma around female reproductive healthcare and well-being. Similarly, with the rise of Dr Karan Raj on Tiktok, now Instagram is something that has helped bust myths, help the consumer to understand the inner work of surgeons and also help with tips and tricks on what to look out for. Most importantly, these doctors continuously work hard to make sure that information that we consume is accurate as possible and backed with evidence. The most recent example of this was the reply that Dr Raj got on the anti-choking device, which was gaining lots of attraction but does not have much evidence to back that it was a good enough device to help. Instead, Dr Raj, went on to research, prove that it was an unsafe device and instruct his viewers on how to safely help someone choking. Overall, it is more about the nature of the way that hyperawareness of health is becoming more trending. The use of social media, the amplification of fears and the overuse of generic and very vague health information are leading to panic for many young and old people. There is a middle ground. The use of these platforms is not a massive issue but making sure that there is more fact-checking being done to make sure that ‘challenges’ are not becoming one of the reasons for the increase in the waiting lists, but giving a chance for all of us to get good care through the NHS, that are already stretched thinly and need all the help they can possibly get.

By Kavisha Manoj Despite the deep entrenchment of neoclassical economics, the past 2 decades have seen a variety of alternative economic theories in public discourse. Among them, is ‘Doughnut Economics’ theorised by Kate Raworth, which tries to fundamentally change the way economics is framed and its priorities. Currently, GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth is viewed as the ultimate aim of every economy and is strongly associated with a measure of welfare and development. Instead, Raworth contends that thriving should be the main goal of policymakers, in a way that is distributive and regenerative. This theory tries to combine two of the fundamental issues with the current global order: unsustainability and inequality. The ‘doughnut’ name comes from this diagram aimed to aid the visualisation of her aims. Since human beings rely on the environment for essentials, there is a minimum environmental burden on the environment to sustain humanity. This constraint forms the inner ring within which there are people living in unequal and unfavourable conditions. The outer ring is the ecological ceiling on planetary pressure beyond which it is unsustainable and harming our ecosystems. Raworth argues that by this definition it would change our classification of development. By this logic, we would all be developing countries as we would either be trying to improve our human welfare or reduce our environmental footprint. This might be a more beneficial way of thinking as often times ‘developed’ countries relegate the responsibility of reducing carbon emissions to ‘developing’ countries, for whom it might be necessary to sustain a standard of living for their human development. The inner ring, also called the social foundation, consists of 12 aspects of life everyone should have access to and includes basic needs like food, water, and housing as well as social institutions like networks, political voice, and peace. I also think the model is more inclusive of all types of environmental degradation instead of a sole focus on climate change by including less spoken about issues like ocean acidification and nitrogen and phosphorus loading. It might seem difficult to imagine this being embedded into UK policy, however, as this is not necessarily a new theory but instead a new framework of ensuring that economic policy lends itself to human betterment within planetary boundaries. Even harder is it to imagine policymakers willing to enact measures that would mainly affect the party donors and wealthy associates who are tied to unsustainable business practices. Whilst there is a general agreement on the need for sustainable development and elevating the social foundation of the country, recent policy decisions seem at odds with these ideals. Recent COP27 resolutions from the UK have widely been seen as lacking ambition and not nearly enough to combat growing concerns and social foundations also appear to have been infringed upon. Most importantly, the cost-of-living crisis has led to a growth in the number of people facing food insecurity and fuel poverty and the government’s anti-striking and protest legislation can also be seen as eroding our political voice. Doughnut Economics being a new framework indicates that it would need to be enacted through structural changes in the decision-making process, through an evolved criteria for successful policies and would likely require bipartisan support. It also cannot be a one-off policy decision and would require a long-term focus on changing what economics is seen to mean and would need to remain a priority for successive governments. Furthermore, there have been discussions on the possible scale of adopting this model, as it is a relatively new addition to the growing field of alternative economic models, it has only been partially trialled in individual cities with varying success. It might, therefore, be an exceptionally large step forward to envision it being part of national-level frameworks in the near future. Amsterdam became the first city to formally implement Doughnut Economics in 2020 and continue to lead the way in its innovation. However, there has been criticism as the numerous initiatives appear fragmented and most do not develop after the initial stage of discussion. The model also has been used by the Cornwall Council to some success but there are major doubts if this can be expanded upon due to different local contexts and political leanings. However, the main merit of this book – I would argue – is not necessarily a detailed alternative to our current systems. Instead, it is the critique of mainstream and foundational economics which can compel individuals to demand more inclusive and representative ways of understanding the world. Her book details a critique of homo economicus – the rational economic man – which is based on Adam Smith’s ideas on self-interested and completely rational individuals. This essentially ignores non-financial motivations and emotions and has been criticised by other successful economists including Ostrom, Sen and Schumacher. The expanding field of rethinking economics has also led to the expansion of feminist economics which aims to recognise the unvalued and undervalued work of women into the economic system. Marçal’s renowned book ‘Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner?’ sheds light on the blind nature of theorising as Smith ignored the unpaid and unvalued care work from his mother which allowed him to dedicate more time towards his academic inclinations. Interestingly, psychologists have found that we take into account notions of justice in our decision-making process from the age of 7, and so perhaps this outdated and restrictive model of economics does have a small audience after all! The case of the care industry is also worthy of particular attention as the unpaid care work of millions is often unpaid, and therefore does not contribute to GDP, illustrating Raworth’s argument that societies can thrive independently of growth instead of growth being the ultimate deciding factor. In conclusion, it is easy to see that the Doughnut Economics model is still at the grassroots level and this early phase has meant that its partial implementations have not necessarily been a wholehearted embracing of its ideals. Instead, for this new framework to succeed on the national level, there needs to be more attention from businesses, technology developers, entrepreneurs, and governments. However, even without widespread implementation, this model has a lot to offer in the smaller stages. On an individual level, this forces us to recognise the economic agents mainstream discussions ignore and to build a stronger foundation for our idea of economics to include goods and services which do not have an attached value. More attention to the field of alternative economics would allow for the way economics is taught to change. Instead of environmental economics being an optional module in virtually all universities, it should be taught as a design fault instead of an unexpected externality.

With such a massive lead in the polls, Labour don’t need a bold plan but it certainly wouldn’t hurt. Much like Arsenal fans at the moment, Labour Party supporters across the country have been filled with hope at the prospect of their first victory in over a decade. However, unlike the gunners, who are perhaps celebrating a little prematurely, it doesn’t look like Keir Starmer’s path to number 10 is going to be met with any substantial resistance. Rishi Sunak temporarily clawed the Conservative Party out of the ‘national embarrassment’ zone, following a polling nosedive of epic proportions under Liz Truss in September. But, with Labour maintaining a stubborn 20-point lead and Conservative seat predictions resting firmly on double digits, his appointment as caretaker manager has yielded very underwhelming results.Despite this, most Labour supporters are finding it difficult to get excited about a potential decade of Starmer government, which he needs to tackle (pun intended) soon if he’s thinking about 2029; and he should be. In the last few months, Labour have attempted to respond to this lack of enthusiasm from the core left with a range of policy gestures. I use the word gesture here because they have deemed it too early to make firm commitments and instead opted to obscure their true intentions behind a veil of ambiguity. The strategy here is to carefully feel their way around the current landscape and make adjustments according to public feedback rather than adopting hard stances at an early stage and risking alienating voters. Historically, a cautious approach to opposition has been essential for Labour and was woefully absent under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership but in the last few months, Britain has practically turned into a second world country. With key workers striking, inflation rising and a Krakatoa recession on the horizon, the country seems to be doing a Netflix reboot of the 1978/79 Winter of Discontent. Whilst a bold vision for the party probably wouldn’t convert into further polling gains, and could even close the gap slightly, it’s certainly disappointing that Starmer is playing it safe when he has an unprecedented opportunity to lead the country into a new era. The most prominent of these new policies has been their pledge to scrap non-dom status in a bid to “tax fairly”. Of course, the popularity of this is undisputed because who doesn’t like the idea of forcing rich foreigners to pay more taxes, especially when Sunak’s wife is one of them. A 2018 Warwick study found that non-doms had on average £560,000 in off-shore accounts that would equate to a tax bill of almost £120,000 each. The problem is that, as Labour’s approval ratings surged ahead of the Conservatives, so too did the likelihood of this policy being implemented, which has resulted in the number of new claimants falling by 40% in just the last year. The so-called ‘brain drain’ argument that raising taxes reduces revenues because people choose to move abroad has been thrown at Labour before, most notably in 2009 when Gordon Brown increased the top rate of income tax to 50%. Brown tried to fend off criticisms that it was taxation for its own sake, but the bottom line was that it increased revenues by a measly £3 billion and the abolition of non-dom status isn’t expected to do much better, even if these people choose to stay. At best, this is an optimistic economic policy that probably won’t make much difference to tax revenues. Arguably though, the notion that abolishing non-dom status is the answer to our public services crisis just isn’t true. Another suggestion that lingered in the media for a few months was Starmer’s support for scrapping charitable status for private schools, meaning that school fees would incur VAT. Labour claim that this policy would raise £1.7 billion but this number does not take into account the displacement of students from the independent to state sector once school fees go up by 20%. It’s difficult to estimate exactly how many students this would affect but if we assume conservatively that 10% would not be able to afford such an increase, that would mean an influx of 75,000 students. With per pupil spending currently sitting at £6,600 per year, this would cost at least £490 million, which means the actual figure sits closer to £1.2 billion. This number seems pretty small when considering that the previous Labour government raised school spending on average by 5% each year, which would cost £5.8 billion to match. With 68% of the public supporting the right for parents to pay for education and only 17% opposing, this policy is also counterintuitive if Labour’s objective is to attract marginal voters. At the very least, Starmer needs to explain where the remaining £4.6 billion is going to come from but, with every other part of their campaign being so safe, it’s strange that they’ve chosen to push the boat out for private schools and not something more immediately pressing. This general theme of avoiding the big questions continues with their proposed House of Lords reform, spearheaded by Labour’s “Commission for the UK’s future”. Produced by Brown on behalf of the party, the report argues that, at the very least, the current makeup of the upper chamber is indefensible and needs significant reform for it to be effective in scrutinising government legislation. Support for overhauling the Lords is overwhelming, with only 12% supporting it as it currently stands but, much like Brexit, finding popular alternatives has proven tricky. The biggest fear, as far as the House of Commons is concerned, is that giving more power to the Lords could create gridlock in the legislative process, which the report acknowledges. It suggests that the second chamber should not be able to affect the forming of governments, public spending plans or reject legislation and that its role should be clearly confined to amending legislation. This new proposed chamber, referred to as the “Assembly of Nations,” would be made up of elected representatives from different regions of the UK and be much smaller than the current House of Lords, which is the largest democratic chamber in the world. Whilst these kinds of policies generate interesting discussion, they serve as a distraction from the glaring issues of today, for which Labour have room to improve. Political capital is going to be extremely scarce by 2024 and devoting airtime to what is, by and large, an administrative reform isn’t going to fill voters with confidence. For example, Labour’s energy policy would be eagerly welcomed over what the Conservatives are proposing but appears to be a victory of simplicity over efficacy. Just to recap, their plan is to freeze the energy price cap to what it was in April 2022, which would save the average household £1000 each year and is expected to cost £29 billion. This “fully costed plan” is supported by £14 billion which is already being spent on the government’s £400 discount along with an £8 billion windfall tax on wholesale oil and gas producers. The remaining £7 billion comes in the form of government interest payment savings as the policy is forecast to reduce inflation by 4%. However, closer inspection from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that this estimation does not account for increased energy consumption during winter and would need roughly £8 billion to account for this. The plan has also been criticised for offering blanket coverage to all instead of targeting low-income households, with Utilita Energy chief exec Bill Bullen calling for a social tariff to provide long-term relief. This might not seem like a huge problem but the plan is expected to eventually cost £60 billion, which is nearly as much as the entire furlough scheme, so giving money to those who don’t need it sets a bad precedent. By far the biggest issue Labour needs to provide an answer to is Brexit, which they have been trying to wriggle out of since June 2016. There is now a mountain of evidence to suggest that the economic impact of leaving the EU will be worse than the coronavirus pandemic and, with Britain being the worst performing country in the G20 apart from Russia, Starmer cannot keep stalling forever. Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy spoke recently about the direction of British foreign policy and stressed the importance of integrating with Europe but was only able to offer vague remarks about “fixing the Northern Ireland protocol” and “reducing friction” in our trading relationship, as if the Conservatives haven’t already been trying to do this. Labour’s Brexit incoherence actually stems from a strategic error made back in 2018 when they chose to vote down Theresa May’s Brexit deal, which would have kept the UK in the customs union and left the single market. This would have avoided the Irish border problem entirely and enabled frictionless trade whilst also allowing Britain to control immigration but, as Brexit secretary, Starmer opposed it in favour of a second referendum. This has backed him into a corner with the only means of escape being to perform a U-turn and admit he made a mistake. Fundamentally though, Labour hit rock bottom in 2019 largely because of their Brexit incoherence so it’s pretty baffling that they still don’t have a clear stance on what Britain’s relationship with the EU should be. Ultimately, no number of innovative policy suggestions is going to distract from the fact that Labour have no clear vision for voters to latch onto. For many, it’s felt like the party has been aimlessly wandering around like a gap year student, trying to find its sense of meaning and purpose. We are living in a post-pandemic, post-Brexit, post-2008 financial crisis Britain and almost every aspect of the economy is hopelessly failing to meet the standards we ought to expect. After 13 years of Conservative government, we are experiencing the worst public services crisis in living memory with 4.3 million children living in poverty and 500 people dying in A&E each week. Labour need to stop telling us how bad the Conservatives have been, which we can already see with our own eyes, and instead explain why what they are proposing is better. With recent findings suggesting that millennial voters have become more left wing with age, the stage is set for Starmer to dramatically transform the UK economy. Such an opportunity may never present itself again and he would be wise not to waste it. That being said, the choice we have as voters at this next general election still matters because, whilst the manifestos we are presented with may end up looking similar, the true intentions of both parties are very different. A Labour government with 484 seats and a genuine desire for change will transform this country for the better so thankfully there is still hope for the rest of the 2020s.

By Gokul Krishnakumar In early December 2022, Peru woke to a direct address from its leftist President, Pedro Castillo, who proclaimed a national emergency and proposed to replace the Congress with an ‘exceptional emergency government’. This event, described as a ‘self-coup’, sparked the current Peruvian crisis which has resulted in the deaths of at least 40 protestors at the hands of Peruvian state forces. In response to this address, the Peruvian Congress convened an emergency session and impeached Castillo with an overwhelming majority after failing to do so in their previous two attempts. This was accompanied by resignations from Castillo’s cabinet, his arrest and detainment on charges of ‘rebellion and conspiracy’ and culminated in Dina Boluarte, Castillo’s First Vice President, being appointed as the new President by the Congress. In response to this, protestors took to the streets demanding Boluarte’s resignation, a new constitution, Castillo’s release, and the dismissal of the Peruvian Congress. Many mainstream outlets have characterized this as a conflict triggered by power struggles between the legislature and executive. However, such a reading of events obscures other significant factors and depoliticizes this crisis to a degree by enabling the proliferation of simplistic narratives which lay the blame of triggering the crisis at Castillo’s feet and paint him as a corrupt individual who sought to hold on to power via a ‘self-coup’. However, such readings obscure the racial politics and class politics at play and above all the major role played by an increasingly obstructionist Peruvian Congress dominated by the Right and led by Fujimoristas. The modern-day Peruvian Congress’ legitimacy lies in the 1993 constitution drafted by a Constituent Assembly dominated by Fujimoristas after opposition parties boycotted elections to the body to protest Alberto Fujimori’s self-coup. This constitution did not legally change the relationship between the executive, judiciary and legislative sections of the government. However, Fujimori bent these institutions to his will by stacking the judiciary with loyalists who would not oppose his increasingly brutal and authoritarian policies and also by converting the Fujimorista controlled Congress into a rubber stamp institution that approved these policies that were justified as either being necessary for development or to suppress the Shining Path insurgency. Fujimori’s particular brand of constitutional authoritarianism was also used to force through devastating neoliberal reforms. After Fujimori’s fall in 2001, the far-right Fujimoristas lost control of the Congress. However, under the leadership of Keiko Fujimori, Alberto Fujimori’s daughter, the Fujimoristas reorganised under the banner of a new political party (Popular Force) and clawed back their majority in the Parliament in 2016. They reverted to using the Congress as a tool to re-establish their supremacy in Peruvian politics by launching impeachment proceedings against the incumbent President. While the Fujimoristas pioneered the use of impeachments, they weren’t the only party that utilised them as it became an acceptable way to remove an executive that the legislative did not favour for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons. However, Fujimoristas have either supported impeachment attempts or used them to obtain political concessions. This cycle of impeachments resulted in the Peruvian Congress losing legitimacy in the eyes of the public and this sentiment sparked massive protests in 2020 after the Congress impeached a president who had initiated popular political reforms. The leftist president Pedro Castillo and the current right-wing dominated Congress took power in the first elections held after these protests. Castillo defeated Keiko Fujimori by a wafer-thin margin which Fujimori sought to call into question by raising allegations of electoral fraud. When this attempt failed, the Right led by the Fujimoristas began a concerted effort to remove Castillo by attacking him from multiple fronts. The assault began during the election campaign as corporate media groups in Peru that are allied to Fujimori and control most media outlets in the country launched a racist smear campaign (terruqueo – often used against indigenous Peruvians by the Right) against Castillo seeking to falsely link him to communist insurgents. After Castillo became President, the media sharpened their attack by seeking to discredit ministers appointed to his Cabinet using largely the same tactics. The media worked largely hand in glove with the Right which moved to censure targeted ministers in the Congress. These attacks paralysed Castillo’s efforts to rule as he cycled through 78 ministers for 19 posts in 16 months constantly moderating as he shifted closer to the right in an effort to stave off the attack. In addition to this, the judiciary opened multiple investigations against Castillo and members of his family accusing them of various forms of corruption. Furthermore, the Congress also blocked multiple legislations sent for approval to the Congress which sought to implement policies targeting the upliftment of the poor. Last but not least, Fujimoristas used their tried and tested tactic of impeachment with the third such attempt succeeding as it prompted Castillo to launch his self-coup, which ultimately secured Congress an overwhelming majority to dismiss him. During this process, a politically immature Castillo saw his approval ratings plummet and even faced widespread protests in early March 2022 in response to the aforementioned alleged corruption charges. However, as the Congress impeached a President that symbolically represented the marginalised, many leftist and indigenous grassroots movements rallied to his cause. Boluarte, who has been described as a political opportunist, has since allied with the Right and unleashed state police forces on the protestors. They have sought to suppress these protests by resorting to indiscriminate violence. In the space of a little less than two months, state police have massacred protestors in Juliaca and Ayacucho. Most of those murdered by state forces have been individuals hailing from poor Indigenous communities. This has resulted in Peru’s top prosecutor’s office launching inquires to investigate allegations of genocide levied against Boluarte’s government. Boluarte’s has responded to these protests by stubbornly declaring that she will not tender her resignation but has agreed to move elections up from 2026 to 2024. Protestors have begun marching on Lima in an effort to force immediate elections as they believe that the rich mestizo and white Peruvian elite (who support Boluarte and the right) centred around urban Peru have largely been able to ignore the protests by and massacres of poor indigenous protestors from rural Peru. Boluarte and her allies in government have resorted to the terruqueo strategy to discredit protestors and have claimed that they are being funded by ‘foreign’ forces. However, polls conducted show that Boluarte only has 28% approval in Lima while those ratings fall to a shocking 9% in rural Peru. Furthermore, Boluarte has become increasingly isolated in Latin America as many leaders have thrown their support firmly behind Castillo or the protestors with largely right wing governments supporting Boluarte’s government. The current President and her cabinet have little legitimacy to rule while the Congress had an approval rating of just 18% even prior to the protests. Therefore, for democracy to return to Peru, it is necessary for Boluarte to begin acceding to the demands of the protestors. This is crucial as the thoroughly reviled Congress has already begun the process of drafting bills that target indigenous communities in Peru and attempted to oppose limited reforms aimed at advancing election dates even while it has a disapproval rating of 88%. In addition to this, only if the violence ends can the investigations into human rights violations demanded by the UN take place. It is morally impermissible for an executive and legislative so thoroughly reviled by its people to claim to represent them even as it violently suppresses protests against it. It is incumbent on the international community to facilitate the return of democracy in Peru by listening to the voices of the marginalised who have led protests calling for a more inclusive form of democratic governance.

By Ananya Sreekumar On 7th December 2022, German Special Forces, in tandem with regional Police forces, conducted raids across the country and arrested twenty-five people for plotting a coup against the state. They were primarily members of the Reichsburger movement, while some were members of fringe neo-nazi groups. The plot involved executing or exiling current leaders, deliberately damaging an electricity grid, and using military-grade weapons to overthrow the German government. This group of far-right ex-military figures was led by "Prince Heinrich XIII", a 71-year-old Austrian disgraced aristocrat of the former German royal house of Reuss. They aimed to re-establish a German Empire in the tradition of the German Reich by instigating a civil war so that they could take power. This is just the beginning of one of the most outlandish coup plot(s) in recent history. So what is the Reichsburger movement? Reichburger, translated to “citizens of the Reich, “ consists of far-right extremists who cannot swallow the tough pill that the German Reich ended in 1945. They are anticonstitutionalists and revisionists who reject the modern German state and constitution. Naturally, they’re staunch conspiracy theorists and believe in QAnon. This American political conspiracy theory revolves around manufactured claims made by ‘Q’, who generally villainises anyone that challenges Donald Trump and heroises his power. Most members of the Rechsburger did not pay taxes in revolt against the government. While others printed their own counterfeit currency and attempted to issue driving licenses like a band of delinquent high schoolers. The group rejects Germany’s current government as puppets of the “deep state”. Interior Minister Nancy Fraeser said the culprits embraced a fallacy based on conspiracy, were connected by a disdain for democracy and were convinced that Germany’s current constitution is invalid. They cannot fathom that Germany is a legitimate Federal Republic and that democracy is the reigning ideology, not monarchy— unsurprising when their leader is a bumbling old aristocrat. Funnily enough, the group had already begun formulating a leadership cabinet, and members had been selected to operate as the new health minister, justice minister and other such roles, with Heinrich slated to play the leader. However, it is to be noted that most of the Reichsburgers do not want to reinstate the Third Reich. Much like dear old Kanye West and other ultra-right German groups, they are staunchly antisemitic and share the belief that the Nazis received too much heat in general public opinion. Still, they worship the Kaisers, not Hitler. They wish for Germany prior to 1918— the heyday of authoritarian leader Otto Von Bismarck, Chancellor of the German Empire. It sounds ridiculous that a bevvy of conspiracy theorists yearning for the days of Bismarckian Germany could threaten the current administration so much that the German Special Forces felt the need to intervene. However, audacious their plot may seem, they are not to be trifled with. Reichsburger’s followers are heavily armed with ties to the military and law enforcement. They also have connections to members of the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland party— a party with seats in almost all state parliaments and the federal parliament. Hence, the idea of them taking hold of the Bundestag is not that far-fetched. Although their plotting was all for nought, this episode exposes the menace of far-right extremists in Germany today. How much of a threat is far-right extremism to Germany? Germany is ahead of the United States (the bar is that low) in tackling right-wing extremists from within by funding research, sophisticated intelligence operations, and civic agencies. The coalition government under Olaf Scholz has upped the ante compared to Angela Merkel’s conservative administration. However, critics say this is too little too late. In 2019, Germany recorded over fifteen times as many far-right attacks as it had in 1990, which only increased. Germany did miss the mark as it has historically been fixated on left-wing extremism despite right-wing-extremist crimes being exceedingly worse and more extensive. Research conducted by The Washington Post shows that most political parties, especially the centre-right, minimise threats from far-right organisations. While centre-left parties fare better, it’s not a significant difference, and they do discount left-wing extremism. This shows that political parties are influenced by ideology and are partisan in circumstances where they ideally should not be– public safety and safeguarding the democratic process. Similarly, government institutions that are meant to be politically neutral think of intelligence agencies and civil services and downplay far-right extremism when they operate under centre-right interior ministers. Their reports do not invoke as much alarm as they should regarding far-right organisations’ nefarious and dubious behaviours. This behaviour allows extremism to run amock and pervade the nation like toxic gas. Where do we go from here? While Scholz has highlighted right-wing extremism as a primary concern, it seems as if the problem has already reached the point where it is getting out of hand. Earlier this month, a 75-year-old woman, dubbed ‘Terror Granny’ by German media, was arrested along with her co-conspirators to overthrow the government. This time the plot involved hiring an actor to impersonate the Chancellor and address the public through a TV speech claiming he has been deposed. You truly cannot make this up. The Grandpa’s and Granny’s of Germany are taking their nostalgia and xenophobia a bit too seriously. In all seriousness, such attempts to depose the government, while unbelievable, are grave threats when the perpetrators have access to military-grade weapons. How has it gotten to this point? How did Merkel’s administration ignore such a pervasive national security issue? Many questions remain.

In October 2022, I made the fateful decision to remove my Kanye West poster from my bedroom wall. The poster was given to me as a Secret Santa gift by my flatmate in first year and, to this day, Ye is my third most played artist on Spotify (behind J Hus and Headie One for those interested) despite me not having played his music for months. Kanye’s journey from being one of hip hop’s most progressive and positive voices for change into a narcissistic, Trump supporting opportunist and subsequently a completely delusional Neo-Nazi can only be described as tragic. Watching one of the most influential artists of this generation press the self-destruct button on his entire career has been difficult but perhaps we should have seen this coming years ago. It was way back in 2018 that Kanye argued slavery was a choice, 2016 when he first endorsed Trump and 2013 when he declared that he opposed abortion and thought he was a God (and also that Sway doesn’t have the answers). On our side of the pond, the ‘Godfather of Grime’ himself Wiley was dropped by his management and banned from social media in 2020 for comparing the Jews with the Klu Klux Klan, which he has refused to apologise for. Antisemitic incidents in the UK rose to an all-time high in 2021 following the escalation in conflict between Israel and Hamas but in 2022, the number remained high as offenders latched onto the war in Ukraine for inspiration instead. The prevalence of antisemitism in hip hop culture is a complex issue and there isn’t much consensus about how it came about or how we should deal with it but, in 2022 particularly, it seems to have gained new legs. Wiley and Kanye are not the first rappers to make these kinds of comments and it looks like they won’t be the last either. Unfortunately, antisemitism has been deeply entrenched in hip hop culture from the beginning. Being born out of the civil rights movement in the late 1970s, hip hop was primarily a politically charged, revolutionary art form before it became commercially focused. Public Enemy, who received the lifetime achievement award at the 62nd Grammys, made numerous antisemitic comments in their music back in the 80s, including a song titled Swindler’s Lust (a mockery of Schindler’s List) and lyrics blaming Jews for the crucifixion of Christ in one of their most famous songs Welcome to the Terrordome. Co-founder Professor Griff said in 1988 that “if the Palestinians took up arms, went to Israel and killed all the Jews, it’d be all right,” prompting Chuck D to remove him from the group at a time when they were receiving mainstream attention with their single Fight the Power. Equally important in the early development of hip hop is Ice Cube who, alongside Eazy-E and Dr Dre, helped birth the gangsta rap era with his graphic and controversial lyrics. On his iconic 1991 diss track No Vaseline, Cube dissed his former group NWA, accusing Eazy of “let[ing] a Jew break up my crew,” referring to the group’s manager Jerry Heller. Whilst he has since apologised for making Heller’s ethnicity the subject of his attack, he continues to affiliate himself with the Nation of Islam, an openly antisemitic political organisation and has posted numerous tweets engaging with Jewish conspiracy theories. Most shocking of all is that, in 2015, he was sued for ordering one of his associates to assault a rabbi, although he continues to deny this. Even JAY-Z, hip hop’s first billionaire, came under fire for promoting conspiracies in his 2017 single The Story of O.J. asking fans “you ever wonder why Jewish people own all the property in America?” This is despite working very closely with Jewish people from the beginning of his career and even filming a television documentary for Def Jam Records equating antisemitism with racism in 2006. Fans have defended this line, arguing that it exaggerates and challenges an existing attitude within the African American community. Jay himself said he found it difficult to take the criticism serious arguing the purpose of the song was to explore stereotypes and saying that “if you don’t have a problem with the exaggeration of the guy eating watermelon […] and that’s the only line you pick out, then you are being a hypocrite.” One myth that has become particularly prominent in the community is that of the Black Hebrew Israelites, who claim that African Americans are the true descendants of ancient Israel. For example in 2019, Kodak Black, albeit not the most politically astute rapper in the game right now, began to identify as an Israelite after being converted in prison. A year later, Nick Cannon was fired by CBS for making a similar claim on his podcast but has since recovered his reputation by educating himself through conversations with Jewish leaders and is the only person to have done so. Elsewhere, rappers praised for their political consciousness such as Mos Def, Lupe Fiasco and Jay Electronica have also been subject to intense scrutiny for their commentary on the music industry, referring to “tall Israelis,” “dirty Jewish execs,” and “the Synagogue of Satan.” History professor Glenn Altschuler argues that whilst rappers did not invent antisemitism, they do play a significant role in spreading it and giving it credibility. Arguably what was more disturbing about Kanye’s social media meltdown wasn’t what he was saying, which although still unacceptable could be treated as a series of bipolar episodes, but what his fans were saying. I had to scroll quite far down his comment section to find any words of condemnation because the top comments all expressed support and solidarity. Equally concerning is what people aren’t saying. The only rapper to publicly condemn Ye for antisemitism was Pusha T, who’s most recent album was produced by him and entered the Billboard charts at number 1. Even Drake, who has been subliminally dissing him for years and has a Jewish mother, could only manage a vague comment about “linking with the opps” on his most recent album. In a 1998 survey, it was found that 34% of black people held antisemitic beliefs, compared to just 9% of white people. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that the issue could be traced back as far as the end of the American Civil War, where Jewish shop owners and landlords who had already been pushed out into the suburbs started doing business with arriving black customers. He claimed that Jewish landlords had been charging black tenants a 20% colour tax and that any feelings of resentment since were as a result of these confrontations. Jews also played an important role in achieving mainstream acceptance of black culture within the entertainment industry, which has been viewed negatively by some commentators like Jeffrey Melnick, who concluded that “while both Jews and African Americans contributed to the rhetoric of musical affinity, the fruits of this labour belonged exclusively to the former.” Lyor Cohen, the tall Israeli that Mos Def referred to, is often cited in conspiracy theories as an example of a powerful Jew within the industry. Cohen started out as a manager for Run DMC before quickly taking on the responsibility of LL Cool J, Rakim, Slick Rick, A Tribe Called Quest and even Public Enemy. He was then made a label executive for Def Jam, where he helped sign colossal names like JAY-Z, DMX, Ja Rule and Mariah Carey. At Warner records, he continued to bring the next generation through including Bruno Mars, Lupe Fiasco, Wiz Khalifa and TI. Finally, in 2016, he was made global head of YouTube music, a platform with a virtual monopoly on music videos and unprecedented industry influence. Cohen is no doubt one of the most essential figures in the development of hip hop but instead, his story plays into a narrative of a top-down industry with hungry execs at the top and starving artists struggling to get by. Joe Berkowitz, a Jewish journalist who has written extensively on hip hop, pointed out that there is an “atmosphere of permissiveness” for casual antisemitism within the culture. In other words, rappers continue to get away with casual similes like “my flow tight like I was born Jewish,” because their label execs, who are often themselves Jewish, don’t hold them accountable. Of course, the same thing is also true of misogyny, homophobia and disability, which are frequently used as punchlines or insults. Rappers tend to present themselves as outlaws and play the villain role, rebelling against what the government or high society deems to be acceptable. There is no better example of this than Eminem, the bestselling artist of the 2000s, who consistently surrounded himself in a field of controversy to provoke certain groups of people and sell records. Ultimately though, there is no excuse for this because record labels should be taking responsibility and doing more to prevent the normalisation of harmful attitudes. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is a severe lack of understanding about what modern antisemitism is and why it’s so harmful which is a failure of education. In his most recent album, Kendrick Lamar provided us with an insightful account of his views towards his transgender aunt, critiquing himself, his community and the church’s views on queer people in the song Auntie Diaries. He explains that, when he was younger, he didn’t know any better and frequently used the f-slur in jokes aimed at his friends, although his actual use of the f-slur in the song received backlash from the gay community. Cases like Nick Cannon prove that education is part of the problem and that open dialogue is needed but there is also substantial evidence to suggest that higher educated people have greater antipathy towards Jews. The Antisemitism Policy Trust has criticised the UK education system for only teaching about antisemitism within the context of the holocaust and called for improvements to the PSHME curriculum as well as better online regulation. Isolating these different explanations is unfair because the truth is, it’s probably a combination of them all. Hip hop is, at its core, protest music so its tendency to offend is very much deliberate. That being said, artists do need to reconsider what it is they are protesting against because the attitudes they sustain towards other oppressed groups are damaging and nothing short of blatant hypocrisy. In the case of Kanye, it was certainly encouraging to see such a swift reaction from Adidas, GAP and Balenciaga, who all immediately cut ties with his Yeezy brand. However, with Adidas reporting a $540 million loss due to unsold products and Ye still sitting in the top 30 most monthly listeners on Spotify, he might now be too powerful to cancel. Being a hip hop fan is already difficult enough with there being roughly 3 major untimely deaths per year and 51% of rapper deaths being homicide compared to just 6% for other genres. I don’t know what’s worse; your favourite rapper dying a hero or living long enough to become a biggot.

Movies are considered as the visual representation of the world that we are living in. No one dislikes watching movies. But do we understand one thing that the audience gets so much engaged in a particular story that they forget the real world? The audience seems to be in a fantasy world where even if the movie shows a controversial story or a morally incorrect plotline, people seem to be okay with it. None of the stories exist in a vacuum and it is the utmost responsibility of the filmmaker, directors, and producers to show something legal, relevant, and acceptable by the audience at large. However, they struggle to strike that balance. Starring Rani Mukherjee and Shadaab Khan in Raja ki Aayegi Baraat directed by Ashok Gaikwad in 1997, this movie was a super hit and was accepted by a wide audience. There was no question raised regarding the story of the movie and how did the filmmaker think of producing such movies. The movie showed the lead hero Shadaab Khan as Raja who is a rapist. He rapes Mala cast by Rani Mukherjee. However, the court ordered Mala to marry Raja. This is a very false representation of the court shown where a vague judgment is given. The same situation and same sort of story were shown in the movie "Benaam Badsha" starring Anil Kapoor and Juhi Chawla. Anil Kapoor as Deepak grows up abandoned and rapes Jyoti portraying Juhu Chawla on her wedding day. However, to a great surprise, Jyoti tries to reform him and as a result, decides to move in with him. Marital rape is something that is still largely untouched by the filmmaker. There are other controversial movies like Provoked and Saath Khoon Maaf which portrayed sexual violence in marriage. Raja ki Aayegi Baraat and Benaam Badshah portrayed an unacceptable story. The place where victims and accused come and seek their trials and bails, how can such movies show that justice has given the order to marry the rapist's victim. To everyone's surprise, the movie portrayed the victim to be agreeing to the fact of marrying her rapist. There was one more South Indian hit movie that was dubbed and remade in Bollywood known as "Tejaswini" which portrayed a similar situation. The question which arises is why didn't these movies show the rigorous punishment of the rapists? Why didn't the filmmaker show the victory of the victim who fought amongst the odds and her rapist leads to imprisonment? The answer to this is we are only focussing on why and not how laws have been amended and repealed. We must agree to the fact that movies in the 70s,80s, and 90s cannot be similar. Controversies and questions might have been raised at that time but as technology is increasing, the mindset of people is changing and movies at present times are quite different and even portray a very strong meaning. Legal Actions Before beginning, the law says "Sex by husband is not rape, it does not matter if it is without consent or forcefully". The word marital rape is having sexual intercourse with own spouse without consent or by compelling or danger. Section 375 of the Indian Penal code is rape. According to the Indian penal Code, marital rape constitutes a punishment of up to 15 years. Marital rape may not have a specific place in the legislature, but IPC has not excluded marital rape from its definition of rape as said in Article 145. Rape along with spousal rape is very much illegal and constitutes 8 years of punishment. There should be an extra-legal step if the rapist agrees to marry the victim which has no specific mention in law till now. Role of Media and Entertainment laws As movies play a very important part in my life, so do the media and entertainment laws. Under Article 19 (1) (A) Film laws in India, such kinds of films should be banned. It guarantees freedom of speech and expression as extended to the press. Thus it is regulated under this constitution. It even falls under the censorship of films as the movies portrayed something offensive. The role of these laws is to protect the freedom of expression, media freedom, and technical standards. Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is the procedure to examine the film before the release. Every movie should be checked along with the storyline before the release. The movies must be made in a way that conveys a positive message and a moral value to be remembered for the rest of life. If any wrong is shown as it was in Raja ki Aayegi Baraat and Benaam Badshah, such movies should have a legal injunction. There might not be any specific section under media or entertainment laws but the Indian Penal Code, Copyright play a very important part. Under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, a person who is found guilty of a violation for exhibiting movies that can violate someone's rights is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 1/-lakh, or with both. The Broadcasting Agency should also note or take care about such stories which are portrayed in the movies. Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act gives guidance in certifying films that can be released and shown to the audience. Even the central government has the right to suspend films if it is a violation. Then why not such films? It might be because at those times, there were no strict laws or differences in mindset or people were very less concerned about such things shown in movies and analyzing them with reality. Provoked and Lipstick under my Burkha are such movies that showed the ill sides and horror abuse of marital rape where it is merely not a crime in India. Marital rape though constitutes a crime but does not have a mention in the constitution. And this is the advantage which is taken by those criminals in finishing the life of a victim. Any husband can rape a wife who is above 15 years old, then what laws would help her? How will she come out from the dark web? To sum up, such movies must be created which portray the rape victim as fearless and bold and coming out of such thing. The movies must be made in comparison to the old blockbuster hits which showed a wrong thing and hence should portray the victim as a fighter. Law is blind and so are the filmmakers. It's high time now for the legislature to make a strict section particularly for marital rape otherwise such kinds of movies would come out and it must be agreed that it is such a disrespectful thing even for justice as the movies portrayed courts giving this kind of unfair order. 32 countries of the world have not yet criminalized marital rape, amongst which one of them is India. The thing doesn't end here. There have been petitions filed to make marital rape an offense but no actions were taken. A woman filed a petition in 2015, to declare marital rape an offense, but the apex court stated: "law should not change for one woman". In the case of Arnesh Kumar vs the State of Bihar, the court stated that if marital rape is criminalized, the social and family life system will be collapsed. Even if remedies are available for women, marital rape should be criminalized and made a criminal offense such as in countries like Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bhutan, Bulgaria, etc. The UN Committee too recommended that the goverment should criminalize marital rapes. Sharanya Chakraborty

With the fourth wave of feminism roaming around for over a decade now, it is interesting to see the changes and whether things have genuinely improved or not. With more women voicing and expressing their experiences of sexual violence, abuse, harassment and objectification, it is apparent that some progress has been achieved due to campaigns and movements, such as #metoo movement. However, there is a greater problem that is yet to be resolved. The shaming that women are met with whilst trying to be expressive and comfortable in their own skin and with their own sexuality. It is a hidden issue that has not been recognised/acknowledged properly. Evidently, we see an uproar of people standing against the typical behaviour of women being degraded. However, there are numerous incidences where this is done within the household, in private, and within small groups. This is something that is far more damaging as it continues to be repeated and is taught to be normal when in reality, it is far from what the norm should be. But the blame cannot be placed on one particular gender. Unfortunately, it is the case that anyone can be guilty of doing this, consciously or unconsciously. Therefore, it is very dangerous and is something we need to societally change. From the normalisation of sexualising women in the media to the calling of women of all sorts of names to degrade their character and shame them for their own choices, these are all areas this article aims to cover. This article goes to show that there is a need for more attention to be placed on these issues through the next wave of feminism as we approach the fifth wave soon. Popular Culture and Women The media has normalised the objectification of womanhood through popular cultures, such as; music videos, magazines, TV shows, and movies. These elements have sexualised women and their bodies, causing them to feel discomfort and insecurity with themselves as evidence proves that 20% to 40% of women are dissatisfied with their bodies. Ultimately, influencers are responsible for this due to the constant changes in beauty trends that compel women to transform their bodies in order to fit in the 'right' mould. The Kardashians, for example, have continued to shape-shift and change the expectations of women’s bodies. From curvy being sexy to the super slim and shrinking body ‘trend’ that they have been promoting recently. This is a direct example of how women's bodies are seen as easily transformable to be accepted and to meet societal expectations. This is problematic! The Kardashians have undergone many surgeries and changed their appearances, setting unrealistic expectations for women. The most recent extremely disordered eating was promoted by Kim Kardashian when she was getting ready for the Met Gala and was trying to fit into the Monroe dress presenting to young women, mostly, that they can meet these unrealistic expectations by placing pressure on themselves and continuing to damage their own health. However, influencers such as Jameela Jamil and Ashley Graham have been advocating body positivity in order to reverse the extreme practices. However, influencers like Jameela Jamil and Ashley Graham have stayed strong and have been advocating body positivity in order to reverse the extreme practices. Jameela Jamil’s posts on Instagram call out magazines like the New York Magazine for promoting the use of Ozempic, which has gained a lot of concerns in regards to triggering eating disorders due to the diabetes drug being labelled off as something that can be used for weight loss. Therefore, Jamil has been, for a long time with her @i_weigh account, promoting mental health, including body positivity to build a positive community with the goal of diminishing irrational expectations, presented by influencers like the Kardashians, of what or how women should be or look like. Name-calling The normalisation of derogatory terms ascribed to women, for example, 'slut' and 'whore' is obscene. I mean, for what reasons are we being called such demeaning names? We are constantly negatively addressed for being 'too expressive' whilst fighting against these societal pressures. Why is the definition of womanhood questioned? The fact that ‘shame’ is brought on women for having the audacity to ask and claim the right to herself and her being able to be expressive, it seems to be unliked by society. Why? Do we need to be waiting for the fifth wave of feminism for this to be something we ‘permit’ women to have freedom to do what they want in their private life? As we are living in the midst, or rather the end, of the fourth wave of feminism, cultural norms also need to be assessed. Women are frowned upon for voicing their rights or expressing their freedom. This is with varied cultures also having an influence on different topics. But one that strikes up the most is the fact that women have to be seen as innocent fitting society's image of being perfect and this idea of females being infantilised, leaving them no space to make any of their own decisions, but left to live in the eyes of society. Isn’t the fourth wave of feminism a time to question the cultural norms that we have grown up with and allow females full freedom rather than oppressing them? Whilst it might be hard to believe that this still continues to be an issue, it truly is. As Taylor explains, shaming has many layers. It is dependent on affluence in general as well as viewing women only as victims fails to hold women accountable for the roles that they play in reproducing these issues. Unfortunately, women judging women for their own expression is very common and, whilst it may seem like a small inconvenience to be called names, it has a massive impact on the victim. Not only does it legitimise the views of society, but these internalised views that we have been taught repeatedly start to become something that affects the individuals self-esteem and their confidence when they are actively deconstructing these views internally. According to the journal Social Psychology Quarterly, slut-shaming is in fact a form of bullying and has actually played a role in the suicide of girls and young women. Thus, the physical and psychological effect slut shaming has on a woman is unforgettable, not ignorable as it has a serious impact on the person shamed for advocating their freedom and rights. In general, whilst we are over a decade into the fourth wave of feminism, and are ready for the fifth wave, I would argue that we still have many of the fundamentals to cover, with societal opinions to change, to begin with in order to move forward as the same interferences will be found again at every point if we do not move forward together and should be at the top of the priority list. With the media continuing to reproduce unhealthy standards for women, to women name called for any of their behaviour, there is no way a woman can move forward or have equal opportunities when they have these battles to fight on a daily basis. Being careful with the way that they interact or behave to the way that they present themselves, there is always a level of caution that they have to keep in mind, which goes totally against the idea of liberating women from these burdens. Ultimately, I would argue that there is a need for solidarity between women. To reiterate the point made earlier, slut-shaming is a form of bullying and causes more damage to the victim and the continual villainising of freedom of choice is significantly damaging, which must be stopped.