Search

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.

Section 66(A) of the IT Act, 2000 says, "Any individual who sends any grossly offensive message through a computer source or any information which is false and causes annoyance, danger, and obstruction will be punishable with imprisonment for three years or more with a fine". The provisions of Section 66A have been a part of the Zombie provisions which are used by the police for the prosecution of the people years laters which have been struck down and declared as invalid. According to Justice Nariman, "Implementation is a Problem", Section 66A of this Act unduly invaded the fundamental rights of the freedom to speech. This in turn created a negative effect on the balance between reasonable restrictions and said rights. This violated the fundamental rights under Section 14, Section 19(1)a, and Section 21 of the Indian Constitution. Reasons behind scrapping of the Zombie Laws: Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 The Supreme court of India had repealed this section in the year 2015 and made the following judgment while scraping the provisions of Section 66A: 1)The bench of judges observed that this particular section affects the citizen's freedom of speech and expression while identifying the liberty of thought as "cardinal". This contradicted Section 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution. 2)The bench held that the language used in the provisions of the 66A of the IT Act, 2000 was vague. Annoying, inconvenient, and grossly offensive are enshrined grounds that make a person accountable and deemed it unconstitutional. Two separate UK judgments were used by the bench to figure out whether the question was offensive or not to which two conclusions were listed down. ● The court also held regarding the above point that if lawyers derive two different conclusions, then how can others decide whether something is offensive or grossly offensive. It is also necessary to be noted that what may be offensive to one may not be offensive to the other person. ● The NDA government ensured that the provisions should not be misused after the introduction of some procedures which were quashed by the court. Based on this, the court issued a statement saying," Governments come and go, but section 66 (a) will remain forever" since the government cannot take an undertaking whether this provision will be misused or abused by the future government. The Legal Zombie making the rounds of Supreme Court years after being repealed The Supreme court showed its astonishment by seeing people registering FIRs under the repealed Section 66 A of the IT act, 2000 in July 2021. This was rescinded in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015). Justice Rohinton Fali was disappointed and shocked on seeing the guidelines on the FIR which were sought and filed by the PUCL (People's Union for Civil Liberties) under Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000. Till today even after 7 long years of this particular section being repealed, there are many cases filed where the offenders are prosecuted under this provision of Zombie laws. This was stated by Adv Sanjay Parikh who appeared for the petitioner in the public interest litigation. This clearly shows the legal illiteracy amongst the law enforcers of the country showing its draconian nature. The solution to such illiteracy is keeping the police forces away from politics and professionalizing them. It was observed that they were working in favor of the parties and disregarding the public by recourse to the zombie provisions without realizing the validity and its scope. India's Attorney General K.K Venugopal stated a very interesting observation that even though the provisions of Section 66A have been struck down by the division bench but the section is there in the bare act. Violation of fundamental rights: Why is it happening? The dire consequences of the provisions of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 violate Section 21 of the Indian constitution as it guarantees protection to life and personal liberty since those people are prosecuted under this scrapped provision. Hence, all high courts must communicate to the district courts that the entire Section 66A of the IT act has been struck down. Different inferences can be drawn from this particular act which is evident from the fact that the magistrates and prosecuting agencies are proactive in not giving effect to a landmark judgment of Shreya Singhal. A few inferences can also be drawn from the NCRB data which supports that even after Section 66A: Zombie laws facing a constitutional death continue to have a zombie-like undead application across the country in different courts and police stations. The court should have suo moto cognizance in light of this non-compliance of the failure of communication between states branches. Just like Section 66 A which exists in society, there are many zombie provisions and an effective solution for this would be to make a procedure for the tabling of an amendment that gives effect to the supreme court decisions like the rules pushed under many statutes". If Zombie laws are not voted against, then they should be circulated in the Gazette of India. Besides, there should be debates on the change of the Gazette or the inclusion of other sections from the Supreme court judgments. We should put a full stop to such injustice and educate the public about the scope of such provisions so that from next time, no such individual is prosecuted under legal zombies. Sharanya Chakraborty

Everyone has heard of NFTs and cryptocurrencies, but what's interesting is the technology it is built on. Blockchain is one of those disruptive technologies that, if implemented and established, could revolutionize the world economy. A blockchain is a time-stamped series of immutable records of data that is managed by a cluster of computers not owned by any single entity. It is an open-source, democratized public ledger system, allowing for transparency and user accountability. For example, the conventional central authoritative system requires human checks and complex approval workflows; however, this structure skips over all of this, making it remotely a permission-less system. According to Satoshi Nakamoto in his 2009 paper, "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System," the trustless architecture of blockchain is achieved through three dimensions - network decentralization, transaction dependency, and proof of work. Establishing trust between parties is costly and, most times, a dragged-out process. However, with such distributed ledger technologies, entities can rely on each other without investing resources. In other words, trust is built without any need for it. Blockchain is not just a platform for financial transactions but a tool that leverages positive elements of a traditional database and reinvents other parts to overcome existing challenges. Where redesigning such systems leads to creativity and innovation. There is a wide range of potential use cases for blockchain technology, which has already been implemented in various fields. For example, the Everledger platform is intended to provide businesses with a safer supply chain management system, as the provenance of assets can be easily traced back through the blockchain. For example, the provenance of luxury goods, such as diamonds, can be tracked to ensure their authenticity and prevent fraud. Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) use blockchain technology to enable decentralized decision-making and governance. This allows for creating organisations that operate by a set of predetermined rules encoded into smart contracts. Online voting systems such as Votem make it possible to for conducting elections resistant to tampering and manipulation, increasing the credibility and legitimacy of elections and promoting greater trust in the electoral process. However, blockchain technology has also received backlash for its perceived lack of sustainability. Critics argue that the energy consumption of blockchain networks, particularly those using proof-of-work (PoW) consensus algorithms, is not environmentally friendly. The recent Ethereum merge, which changed the Ethereum network from a PoW to a proof-of-stake (PoS) consensus algorithm, is an example of the efforts being made to address this issue. The switch to a PoS consensus algorithm is expected to lead to a reduction in energy consumption of approximately 99.95 per cent, as it does not require miners to solve complex mathematical equations to validate transactions. This would make the Ethereum network more sustainable and scalable moving forward. Adoption into traditional institutions Blockchain technology has gained traction among traditional institutions and has been adopted by several enterprises. The attractiveness of blockchain technology to these institutions lies in its ability to provide a secure platform for conducting transactions and maintaining records. As a result, companies such as IBM and Hyperledger Fabric have developed private blockchain solutions for enterprises. In addition, blockchain-as-a-service (BaaS) offerings from companies like Microsoft and Kaleido have made it easier for businesses to implement this tech. There have also been a few governments that have had a positive reaction to the adoption of blockchain technology. Estonia, for example, has implemented blockchain technology in a number of its government services, including its e-health records system. Similarly, El Salvador has announced its intention to adopt Bitcoin as a legal tender. However, not all governments have been as receptive to adopting blockchain technology. Some have been hesitant due to concerns about its regulation and potential risks. A Deloitte survey found that a lack of understanding and trust in the technology was a barrier to adoption for many organizations. There have also been many legal cases involving blockchain technology, such as the ongoing Ripple Labs court case in the United States. In this case, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleges that Ripple Labs violated securities laws by selling its cryptocurrency, XRP. There have also been other cases involving blockchain technology, such as the recent FTX case in which the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed charges against the cryptocurrency derivatives exchange for allegedly engaging in wash trading and prearranged trading. The bad press that blockchain tech has faced as a result of these cases is detrimental. It is worth noting that the development of blockchain technology was spurred on by the 2008 financial crisis. The current economic uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has led to renewed interest in the potential of blockchain technology to address some of the challenges facing traditional systems. Similar to how the advent of the internet has proven to be essential in all areas of our day-to-day functioning despite the initial backlash, further proves that new innovations such as these should be taken with greater seriousness.

In the early hours of Monday, 6th February, two earthquakes of magnitude(s) 7.8 and 7.5 took the lives of over 44,000 people (as of writing) in Turkey and Syria have inundated news feeds worldwide. Now, with the aftershocks (of a 6.4 magnitude) felt early on Monday evening, the devastation has only grown. Southern Turkey and Northern Syria sit on the East Anatolian fault line between the Anatolian and Arabian plates. These plates moved in what is known as a "left-lateral" motion, creating a chasm with either side moving leftwards away from the existing fault line— with rupture lines cutting straight through settlements and even buildings. Two fault lines– the North and East Anatolian fault lines– run across Turkey. This has made the nation prone to earthquakes for centuries. The worst one in recent memory is the 7.6 magnitude earthquake in 1999 that hit the northern province of Izmit. The recent disaster occurred in the region opposite Izmit and borders Syria. The Turkish areas worst impacted by the quake were densely populated with Syrian Refugees, who were housed in shoddily constructed and generally neglected buildings. Infrastructure affected within Syrian borders was also poorly constructed and weakened by years of conflict. However, as the dust settles, critics consider whether the scale of suffering could have been lessened beyond the epicentre. The magnitudes of the earthquakes alone were cause for severe destruction. Yet, with more information regarding years of corruption and ignorance of safety regulations on the part of the Turkish government, many are asking the question: How man-made was this natural disaster? With developments in modern architecture and safety regulations, in a known seismic hotspot, buildings should have been built to ensure the safety of their residents. It is estimated that over 3450 buildings have collapsed in southern Turkey. Most of the buildings in the region appear to have been built with weak concrete and little to no seismic reinforcement. Turkish seismic codes are up to standard and should have protected most buildings from collapsing if followed. The issues lie with the structural integrity of these buildings. In fact, viral videos show the structural collapse of buildings in what experts call a "pancake mode". This type of structural collapse is top-down, meaning the upper floors collapse on the lower floors, crushing them in the process. This is one of the most dangerous forms of structural collapse as it causes the most damage and can complicate rescue efforts with people trapped under piles of rubble. In Turkey's case, this could've been what made this natural disaster one of the deadliest in recent history. The buildings most prone to destruction were 'soft story structures' most commonly found in nations like Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Turkey. Soft story buildings are large structures with multiple floors but with an open plan at the bottom which usually acts as a garage or extra space for a garden, small business or additional homes. These buildings are an easy solution for countries with large populations and overcrowding. However, they do an abysmal job of withstanding medium to powerful earthquakes as the lower floors are made of brittle concrete and have fewer walls or pillars that are not connected to walls which weakens the structural integrity of the building. The lowest floor cannot support the heavier ones above it in the case of an earthquake where the entire building shakes, and the bottom floor collapses under the weight of the more serious upper floors trapping and crushing people amid all the debris. This is what took place in both the earthquakes of 1999 and 2023, which suggests that the Turkish government had prior warning of the damage such buildings could cause. A report released after the 1999 earthquake claimed that 85-90% of all buildings that collapsed were soft-story structures, exacerbating the fatalities of the disaster. In the aftermath, the Turkish government reformed building safety codes. However, they were not adequately enforced due to corruption— ignoring expert recommendations, President Erdogan's government approved 7.4mn applications in 2018-19, providing 'amnesty' to buildings that had breached a broad set of basic licensing, design, and safety rules. According to the environment ministry, this scheme raised $4.2bn in registration fees. Before the earthquake, another round of similar 'amnesty' was being deliberated in the Turkish parliament. Moreover, most buildings in Turkey were built before the 1999 disaster, so they could only be strengthened and protected retroactively. Retroactive fittings for soft story buildings are possible such as reinforced steel columns and walls and steel bolts and braces attached to the foundation of the buildings. So, if the structure is shaken, the lower floor stands firmly in support. Unfortunately, retroactive fittings are costly, with the world bank estimating the scale of retrofitting that needs to take place amounting to $465bn. This is simply not feasible for a nation likely Turkey, which likely had more pressing issues to solve on its priority list, not to mention the monumental costs of such a mammoth task. Moreover, the BBC found residential buildings shown on video collapsed in a pancake manner, were recently built and advertised to be up to the most recent building and earthquake safety regulations. These buildings would not have had to be fitted retroactively as constructed newly. Their collapse cannot be blamed on expenses but simply corruption by the builders and government regulators. It is clear that despite being a well-known seismic hotspot, Turkey was severely unprepared for this disaster. The government and building corporations' blatant disregard for public safety has cost people their lives. While an earthquake of such a magnitude and scale was bound to leave disaster in its wake, the scale of suffering could have been lessened had the Turkish government, with all the resources at its disposal, prioritised the people who elected them to power over greed. Unfortunately, this tragedy is the perfect example of innocent people facing the consequences of a government that will look the other way as long as it turns a profit.

The recent arrest of Andrew Tate has made headlines in the mainstream media- informing more people of the actions of the ‘king of toxic masculinity.’ Social media has been bombarded by content relating to Andrew Tate since August 2022 but recently greater realisation of the negative impact his words and actions are having on the wider population (specifically men) can be seen. Whilst his controversial views may be used as a source of entertainment for some, others truly respect and idealise his views causing a progressive society to move backwards. Tate has used the internet as a source of income through the introduction of ‘The War Room,’ now called ‘The real world,’ the Hustlers university and finally, the fame that he has gained from social media particularly TikTok. The War Room is essentially a cult for men where violence is encouraged and men are taught to internalise patriarchal views, but it is disguised under its description of being ‘a global network in which exemplars of individualism work to free the modern man from socially induced incarceration.’ All these platforms share offensive and patriarchal views about a woman’s role in society and advice on what it means to be a ‘man’ teleporting us back to the mid-19th century. However, the biggest concern raised is regarding the influence Tate’s online presence is having on children who have access to these platforms. An article by BBC suggests schools are having to tackle with the knock-on effects of Tates misogynistic and toxic views. Teachers report that they have seen an increase in strong words such as ‘rape’ being used without children understanding the seriousness of the word. The Guardian also reported about a boy praising Andrew Tate in a school in the UK and when asked if he understood Tates views, his response was ‘well, men are better than women, so he’s right’ while his friends nodded in agreement. This shows how a few seconds worth of video is teaching that it is acceptable to spread factually incorrect information on the internet. Tate’s influence has catalysed the misogynistic views amongst the youth today. We need to educate young men on the importance of equality and open their eyes regarding the mistreatment of women in our society rather than encouraging the warped view that Tate has presented. During a PM questioning, Labour asked Rishi Sunak what schools can do to prevent the ‘brainwashing’ of students by Tate. In response, we were directed to the Online Safety Bill which imposed an age limit to protect children from accessing these materials online. However, the lack of implementation of this bill can be seen very clearly illustrating how the gravity of the situation is underestimated and not taken seriously. Platforms such as Instagram, Twitter and YouTube do not thoroughly check the age of their users undermining the effectiveness of the bills in reducing the exposure of sensitive content to children. Additionally, banning Andrew Tate from social media platforms does little to reduce his influence as most of his content is recreated and duplicated through fan accounts. An article on Global Network on Extremism and technology suggests that Tate is already seen as a ‘reversed hypermasculine hero’ who is building a loyal following by capitalising on ideas of ‘manhood’ and ‘masculinity.’ This shows how the algorithm is not only favouring his content on these platforms but, giving him the power to direct his audience to platforms where he is not banned, namely, Twitter and Rumble. Furthermore, the issues lie not only with the misogynistic views but also with the neoliberal work culture that Tate is encouraging. Tate is advertising an unhealthy lifestyle to individuals by encouraging them to disregard their mental health and focus all their energy on finding ways to make more money. He is promoting the hustle culture and suggests anyone that is not rich is ‘lazy’- a view that is not only outdated but also very harmful. With a nation which is finally acknowledging mental health as being a serious concern, this view is negatively impacting decades worth of work to move society in a more inclusive and progressive direction. This article was written in collaboration with Maya Patel and Iman Irfanullah.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of the Cold War and lifted previous restrictions for capitalist nations, allowing them to shift focus from ideological conflicts with their communist adversary and instead address their own issues. If the United States and other developed capitalist nations had taken advantage of this opportunity to establish an international economic and political system based on principles such as fair trade agreements that support development in emerging countries, the world would have greatly benefited. Instead, the developed countries used this opportunity to create a global trade regime that primarily served their own corporate and financial interests, at the expense of the poorest nations in the Third World. It is ironic that three decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, economist Joseph Stiglitz had to concede in a 2019 article published in The Guardian: “…we need to dismiss the view that because the US won the Cold War, America's economic system had triumphed. But it was not so much that free-market capitalism had demonstrated its superiority but that Communism had failed”. Joseph Stiglitz's aforementioned article, titled 'Neoliberalism must be pronounced dead and buried. Where next?', served as a virtual obituary for the ideology, as it proclaims its demise. In the article, Stiglitz declares, “the neoliberal experiment - lower taxes on the rich, deregulation of labour and product markets, financialization, and globalisation - has been a spectacular failure”. The 2008 financial crisis exposed the shortcomings of America's position as a global economic leader, damaging its soft power in the process. It is now widely recognized that the American capitalist system benefits only a small elite, leaving a majority of citizens in poverty. If both communism and capitalism have been shown to be ineffective, the question arises: What kind of economic system is most beneficial for human well-being? Efforts are being made within progressive capitalist circles to find alternatives to the centre-right economic paradigm of neoliberalism within the framework of capitalism. Different capitalist models such as far-right nationalism, centre-left reformism, and progressive capitalism are being reevaluated to determine if they can produce better outcomes than neoliberalism. However, of these alternatives, only the 'progressive capitalism' model remains relevant today, as the other two models remain tied to ideologies that have, or should have, been discarded. For instance, the centre-left, which tries to give neoliberalism a human face, attempts to update the policies of the 20th century like those of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair for the 21st century, only making minor revisions to the current modes of financialization and globalization. At the extreme end, the clique of nationalist-right-wingers represented by Donald Trump subscribed to a fascist-like ideology that blamed immigrants and foreigners for all of the US's problems. These neo-fascist cliques inflict on humankind the kind of evil that goes far beyond what has hitherto been perpetrated by the neoliberal economic agenda. The 'progressive capitalist' camp advocates for a new interpretation of Keynes's ideas, maintaining that the state needs to have a larger role in the economy in order to achieve both economic growth and social equality. The progressive capitalists are merely seeking an alternative to American-style capitalism by examining the various forms of democratic market economies like the social democracies of Sweden and Norway, which appear to them to be achieving faster economic growth and better living standards for their citizens. However, social democracy represents an insufficiently radical solution to the problems of modern capitalist societies. It is unlikely that the revised Keynesian ideas would ever be allowed to be implemented by the powerful private interests who are completely opposed to the idea of Keynesian-style state intervention in capitalist market economies. Therefore, there is a need to go beyond Neo-Keynesianism and search for another alternative economic model that establishes a fundamentally different economic agenda. The ideal future direction for economics could be to completely abandon the market economy model and create a technologically advanced version of a centrally-planned, command economy model. It is possible to construct a democratically planned economy based on modern computer technology - it would be both more economically stable and morally superior to free market economies. In a command economy model, a central agency (the government), instead of the free market, controls the means of production. The 'cyber command economy' model involves creating centralized, non-market-directed economic plans that aim to balance the physical quantities of available inputs with desired outputs to decide on investment and resource allocation in the economy. Even though the command economy model is often associated with Soviet-style communism, it does not necessarily have to be linked solely to extreme-left ideologies. In current American-style capitalism, a small group of financial capitalists and corporations exerts a level of control over their economy and government that exceeds the influence that the communist bureaucracy ever had on the Soviet economy. In reality, market economies often have a much higher degree of top-down control (by the power elite) than the general public realizes. Bernie Sanders sarcastically points out that in many ways, America is a socialist country, but the issue is that it has socialism only for the wealthy and rugged individualism for the poor. For example, the financial responsibility of paying Walmart workers is passed on to the public because the government provides Walmart workers with Medicare and food stamps, while the wealthiest family in America (the Walton family, which owns Walmart) becomes richer by not paying its workers a living wage. The former command economies of the Soviet era faced persistent problems with supply. The crude 'material balance' method used in Soviet-type planning (STP) caused inefficiency and led to a strong bias towards underproduction, resulting in a shortage of consumer goods. Neo-Marxist economist Alec Nove in his book 'The Economics of Feasible Socialism' estimated that without the advanced computing technology available today, creating a comprehensive and balanced plan for Ukraine alone would have required the work of the entire world's population over a 10 million-year period. However, the difficulties that plagued Soviet-type planning can now be overcome with advancements in information and communications technology. Nevertheless, the same technological advancements that could improve the command economy model also present a risk of abuse by corporate interests in capitalist economies. Large technology corporations like Amazon, Google, and Facebook gather huge amounts of data on individuals, known as Big Data, and use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to process it. They then misuse the information to increase their own market power at the expense of customers. These companies can use this data to engage in price discrimination by determining how much each customer values different products and is willing to pay for them. As a result, those who value a product more or have fewer options are charged more. If used correctly, the information obtained from Big Data could provide many positive opportunities such as customized healthcare to meet the diverse needs of people. Instead, AI and Big Data are being utilized by large technology companies to capture a larger portion of the value that society produces, leaving most people worse off. Despite these challenges, the advanced computational infrastructure available today can assist in processing and interpreting vast amounts of data and statistics using mathematical optimization methods, computer algorithms, and artificial intelligence, to achieve optimal outcomes from economic planning. It has the potential to make the modern command economy model highly efficient. For example, Google is able to solve systems of linear equations that are far larger than those required for large-scale economic planning. In fact, modern computational planning can provide an alternative to the traditional market system. The command economies enabled by computational planning would be vastly different from their earlier versions, therefore it would be appropriate to create new terminology to reflect their enhanced capabilities. They could be referred to as 'cyber command economies' or 'command economies on steroids'. The command economy model was a 20th-century concept that required 21st-century computer technology to succeed. Although we now have the technology to support an efficient command economy, the current oppressive political climate is preventing the idea of a 'cyber command economy' from becoming a reality. However, any transition from capitalism to a 'cyber command economy' would follow a similar path as the transition from feudalism to capitalism - it would happen gradually and not all at once. We are already seeing some aspects of the 'cyber command economy' emerge within capitalism, but capitalist features still predominate, just as early capitalism still featured remnants of feudalism. Eventually, capitalist features will fade away and the vision of the 'cyber command economy' will be realized. This article was written by Sharmista (Sherry) Lakkineni.

(Image: Flickr/ Gage Skidmore, Illustrations by Will Allen) When she’s not busy listing her items of clothing on Facebook marketplace or getting her staff to buy her groceries, Arizona’s senior senator is busy making enemies of everyone. For the past two years Kyrsten Sinema has endlessly frustrated Biden’s aspirations to transform America – becoming her party’s true limiting factor in the Senate. She has killed numerous policies she’s on record supporting and limited others for no good reason. All these legislative antics have played out in the shadow of Sinema’s deafening silence, as a result few seem to know the senator or the grand ideology that guides her. Entering the 118th Congress the task of decoding Kyrsten Sinema and her set of beliefs hasn’t gotten any easier. She’s severed ties with her former party and is staking what little political capital she thinks she has left on the enigmatic title of political independent. Somewhat ironically, to understand Sinema's and her idiosyncratic politics you need to look at Sinema herself and the impossible position she’s place herself in. When Biden assumed the Presidency, he did so with the governing trifecta and the power to pass long dreamed of Democratic policy goals. One person critical in facilitating this trifecta was Kyrsten Sinema, a first term Democrat from Arizona elected in 2018. Without her the Biden Presidency would never have passed items like the child tax credit (which cut child poverty in half) or confirmed the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. Paradoxically, Sinema’s presence was also the undoing of vast swathes of a once bold Democratic agenda. She spent two years wreaking havoc on the very issues she’d signed up to support and her constituents sent her to Congress to realise. Sinema ended up tanking vast swathes of the Biden Presidency. For two years the equally divided Senate which required her vote to pass any legislation handed Sinema such immense power, and she used it. (Image: Flickr/ Gage Skidmore, Illustrations by Will Allen) Her perchance for saying ‘no’ to her own party can be traced back to an intra-party fight over raising the minimum wage in the first reconciliation package. Sinema, of course, wasn’t the only Democrat who voted to kill the minimum wage hike, multiple centrist Democrats stuck knives into the provision, yet none were performed with relish of Sinema’s tone-deaf theatrics. Prior to giving what would become an infamous thumbs-down – to a policy she had long been on record supporting – Sinema served cake on the Senate floor. The let-them-eat-cake moment was quickly seized upon by critics, less so were her motives for opposing the raise. The Senator, who grew up in poverty, stated she only said no because she was a stickler for the Senate’s arcane procedural rules. As the Biden Presidency rolled on Sinema’s obstruction only became more painful to her party’s legislative dreams. When Biden unveiled his ill-fated social spending program ‘Build Back Better’, Joe Manchin drew the ire of the Democratic caucus for bringing down the landmark bill in spectacular public fashion. Yet, Sinema played an equally important role tearing apart the proposed legislation – she just did so privately, refusing to negotiate in public. When Manchin finally agreed to move forward with the remains of 'Build Back Better', in what would become the Inflation Reduction Act, Sinema remained unmoved she was still a ‘no’. To quash her opposition Democrats had to watch as she stifled the popular prescription drug price cap plan in the Inflation Reduction Act. Even Joe Manchin, arch conservative in the Democratic caucus, was irked calling out “a senator from Arizona who basically didn’t let us go as far as we needed to go with our negotiations and made us wait two years.” Sinema didn’t stop there, she also went to the mat to strip out an end to the gratuitous carried-interest loophole – a provision which lets the richest Americans pay virtually no tax on their Wall St. riches. To this day this request remains her most puzzling; few (if any) in congress would go to the hilt to defend this loophole, but Sinema did – placing the landmark bill and her political future at risk, for no apparent end. Why she chose to protect private-equity lobbyists while downgrading Americans’ access to affordable prescription drugs remains elusive. Coincidentally, as she insisted on these tweaks her campaign check book was being lined by the pharmaceutical industry and lobbyists like Dan Mahoney were flattering her in state op-eds. Sinema is in corporate America's good books. Her campaign has drawn huge donations from lobbyists and corporations that admire her use of the word 'no'. Yet, money likely isn't her guiding principle, she could rake in far more money pleasing the small-dollar donors of the Democratic Party by supporting Biden's legislation - which makes her actions all the more confusing. (Image: Flickr/ Gage Skidmore, Illustrations by Will Allen) As a result of this endless obstruction, Arizona’s senator has become what can only be described as a lightning rod for Democratic dissatisfaction. A fact which is only compounded by the fact Sinema is not a forthcoming politician (at all), refusing to entertain questions regarding why she engages in the legislative battles she does. She is renowned for airing constituents, refusing meetings, ghosting emails, and even cutting all contact with the very progressive groups who aided her narrow victory in 2018. Disgruntled by her silence some have sought answers. In 2021 a group of students from Arizona tried to understand their senator’s opposition to the ‘Build Back Better’ legislation her obstruction would eventually help kill. Yet rather than give a straight answer to the very people who knocked on doors for her, Sinema locked herself in a bathroom. Such an act would have undoubtedly drawn the ire of a young Kyrsten Sinema who spent her time calling out self-obsessed politicians only interested in obtaining power. Sinema is a famously private person. A fact which has only made her actions more bemusing as America tried to guess the motives behind her obstruction. (Image: Flickr/ Gage Skidmore, Illustrations by Will Allen) This brings us to the enigma of Sinema today. Sinema is not only hated by the progressive and Democratic circles she once pinned her political ideology to. Arizonians’ Democrat, Republican and Independent alike have a strong distaste for their senior senator. Polling gives tell-tale insight to Sinema’s standing in her state – among those she needed to win in a Democratic primary she received a net unfavourable rating of -57 percentage points (by contrast Democrat Mark Kelly has a +68 favourable rating from the same pool of voters). In short, Sinema is underwater with every kind of voter. Where she draws her biggest support from is Republican voters, a laughable fact considering her former self lambasted Joe Lieberman for seeking their support – “He seems to want to get Republicans voting for him—what kind of strategy is that?”. Her new status as an independent strikes a blow to what was once inevitable: the imminent unseating at the hands of her own party. Sinema who has an eye on re-election knows 2024 brings a brutal slate of Senate elections for the Democratic party, one only made impossibly harder by her move. If she runs, Democrats can either attempt to unseat her in a high stakes three way race with potentially disastrous consequences or they can swallow a poison pill and endorse her candidacy. Sinema will be remembered for her endless use of the word ‘no’, but for what reason? Her enigmatic obstruction burned all bridges with the very electoral base and party that allowed her accent into elected office. Sinema boxed in by her own actions has only one option, to go to war with her former party and hope she can survive the battle. Independence is a political power move, one which reveals what might be her true guiding principle – Sinema herself.

Political history of Investment Zones Similar to the Enterprise Zones promoted by Thatcher and Osborne, the Investment Zones announced by Kwarteng in September were sold as a way to promote growth in the UK. The basic idea behind the zonal policy is that of offering tax breaks in certain geographical areas to provide incentives for firms to move to areas where there aren't a lot of opportunities. However, these plans by Kwarteng were modified by Hunt to focus more on ‘growth clusters’ instead of promising it will aid development. Further, the scale of the project has been vastly cut with Hunt aiming to ‘catalyse a limited number’ of areas whilst the original plan – under Liz Truss – was for 100 or 200 of these zones. More importantly, by focusing on the zones for innovation and research, Hunt has improved upon previous policies. Place-based policies (like the one under Truss by Kwarteng) are notoriously high-cost ‘solutions’, even discounting the short-term tax breaks. Estimates suggest that bidding for the three Levelling Up funds cost local governments £63 million. Instead of being borne by the Treasury, already struggling local authorities are usually expected to pay for this. Another major issue with place-based policies is that they encourage companies to move locations. By incentivising this, they displace economic activity from one area to another and so its impact is often overestimated. Enterprise Zones in the 80s and 90s created 58,000 new jobs but over 40% of those jobs were from companies who relocated to enjoy tax breaks. Similarly, for the 2011 Enterprise Zones, the Treasury predicted the creation of 54,000 new jobs by 2015, but by 2017 there were only 17,500 new jobs, out of which more than 30% were due to relocation. They also only created a fourth of what the Treasury has estimated, creating questions about the significance of tax cuts in the first place. Reforming Investment Zones? Levelling up should be a long-term priority for the government to ensure that areas of the country grow together and to provide being around the country with the same opportunities and improve jobs and living standards. It is also important for the government to expand what is seen as levelling up to include disparities in average life expectance, well-being and education instead of purely targeting corporate endeavours. Further, the problem of uncertainty stemming from Brexit and subsequent failures from governments has created an unpredictable environment for investors, who desire stability. To see a boost in investment, there needs to be more certainty to support long-term industrial strategies. Hunt’s reformed vision for these Zones is closer to what many papers suggest is the best way of increasing investment. Focussing investment in a few areas is better than a thin, even spread to start off. The Levelling Up White Paper named Glasgow, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands as Innovation Accelerators. It would be more advisable to give adequate funding to these areas rather than too little too many areas and failing to provide any material changes. Hunt was also right in suggesting making use of local universities as it links with the larger idea of Investment Zones needing to be better connected to the local systems. Some research has suggested that less productive regions of the UK, are more specialised in areas relevant to achieving net-zero, meaning that this could be an opportunity to level up and generate growth as well as address environmental issues and funding technology. Along with universities, Zones need to utilise other major firms in the area and wider research institutes. There is, however, a larger issue with this form of Investment Zones. The What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth concluded that whilst Investment Zones brought increased activity to the area, due to this largely being due to the displacement of jobs elsewhere, it is unlikely to lead to UK growth. Further, tax cuts and deregulation might not lead to new practices as it makes it cheaper to conduct business and might lead to low-wage jobs expanding instead of lifting areas out of deprivation. Under Kwarteng’s plan, along with tax incentives, there were lower employer National Insurance Contributions, lower business rates for new buildings, deductions in corporation tax, looser planning rules etc. By making deregulation and tax cuts the major incentive, the previous government ignored a lot of evidence suggesting that Research and Development activity is more reliant on skilled labour than lower costs. More interestingly, however, were the plans for local growth funds where mayoral authorities would receive a ‘local growth settlement’. IfG research has suggested that the funding model for mayoral combined authorities are more effective in long-term planning and coordinated policy and certainty through its competitive bidding process. Whilst Hunt’s U-turn on Truss’ investment zones is a better policy, the government needs to make plans for these Zones to be as innovative as the technology they are hoping to create. Certainty and agreement about a long-term vision will be more of an incentive to businesses than tax cuts. Perhaps it is time to escape the political rut of recycling tried, tested and failed ideas purely due to its neoliberal stance, especially on a bipartisan issue.

As climate inaction from political leaders around the world persists, the onus has fallen upon climate-conscious members of the general public to shed light on the reality of the environmental crisis and to campaign for urgent change. Yet, rather than taking heed of their warnings, and using their positions to implement more robust and ambitious policies, political figures are stopping at nothing in their attempts to silence the activists. A new report issued by Global Witness, in partnership with The Guardian, uncovered the murders of more than 1700 environmental defenders in the past decade, including over 200 in 2021. This is not just a series of tragic events: it is a calculated pattern of exterminating those who demand governmental action and accountability on the climate crisis. This problem is not going away; rather it is gaining momentum, as the annual number of murders of climate activists has begun to consistently exceed 200 in recent years. The majority of these murders are concentrated in Asia, Central and South America, and a vastly disproportionate number of the victims are indigenous people, defending land that was stolen from their ancestors. Yet these murders are not making the headlines. These people are being killed as silently as possible, keeping the general public unaware of both the enormity of the climate crisis and the reality of the suppression of activists. The news tends to stay concentrated in the activists’ surroundings, spreading waves of fear across some of the most disproportionately impacted victims of climate change. The murders not only ensure that the individual activist is silenced, but also act as a deterrent to intimidate their communities into silence. It is hard to recognise the gravity and reality of the murders without learning of the lives behind these numbers. Global Witness sheds light on the stories of some of the targeted murder victims: In Colombia, Sandra Liliana Peña, who governed a Nasa Indigenous community, openly spoke out against the growth of illegal crops in her area. As she prepared to travel to meet with local government officials, she was forced out of her home and shot dead. In Nairobi, Kenya, Joannah Stuchbury became a figure well-known for her work to defend the Kiambu Forest, as she confronted those orchestrating deforestation in the area. She received many death threats before the day of her murder, but was issued no protection. That day, branches were placed in front of her car, deliberately obstructing it and thus forcing her to get out. She was later discovered dead in the vehicle, with the engine still running. In Brazil, land rights defender Fernando Araújo was killed in his own home. Fernando had witnessed the 2017 massacre of ten landless activists in Pau D’Arco, and was testifying in the investigation. His voice threatened to hold accountable the police officers who inflicted the massacre. No one has been arrested for his murder. Each addition to the murder toll represents the loss of an individual committed to protecting the land upon which we all rely. An individual killed in order to be silenced. In failing to hold accountable the perpetrators of these attacks, these governments and legal systems are acting as enablers. Indeed, many of the murders have been carried out by people in roles that are supposed to uphold justice, like the many police officers who also work as private militias. Whilst murders of environmental activists are not being reported on UK soil, the current government is passing through a wave of measures designed to restrict the right to protest and environmental defenders are being imprisoned for their activism. The ‘Public Order Bill’ is currently working its way through parliament, with draft legislation having already gained the approval of the House of Commons. This draconian bill sets out plans to severely restrict the rights of activists, criminalising a wide range of methods of public protest. Climate protests would not be carried out if those in political power were listening to climate science and taking action. But instead of accepting responsibility, our government is putting measures in place to take away the platforms for people protesting for a better, more just world. The UK government is tightening the rope around the neck of the democratic right to protest, as the world accelerates towards climate catastrophe, when the future of our planet is dependent on the challenging of current governmental policy. The proposal for such restrictions was not present in the 2019 Conservative Election Manifesto, and it is now being quietly moved through parliament, reflecting this government’s intent to abuse its power, in order to silence activists. Meanwhile, on a global scale, the tool of social media, which has become so vital in the worldwide dissemination of information, is also playing a role in silencing messages and information about the climate. Environmental activists are reporting a decrease in activity on their accounts across multiple different online platforms, whenever their posts contain environmental buzzwords. These reports are in line with claims from people posting about a range of different social and political issues that they are being deplatformed when their content challenges right-wing politics. The science tells us that we are rocketing towards catastrophic environmental damage, which threatens the future of the generations to come. Whilst governments around the world continue to under-deliver on already weak environmental policies, we are reliant on the brave voices of scientists and climate activists. The silencing of these voices puts us on a fast track to irreparable global disaster.

The 2022 Qatar World Cup is now well under way but the controversies surrounding the event don’t seem to be dying down in the media despite the best efforts from FIFA and the Qatari regime to “focus on the football”[1]. In fact, this has arguably become one of the most politically charged major world sporting events of recent years, with engagement coming not just from fans but also from competing athletes and sports officials. FIFA have been particularly under pressure in the run-up to the tournament, with President Gianni Infantino delivering a bizarre monologue comparing his own childhood bullying experience to the suffering endured by migrant workers at the hands of the Qatari regime[2], which has since blossomed into a trending meme template on social media. Part of the reason politics continues to linger is that there doesn’t seem to be a dominant consensus yet, which has resulted in some quite interesting discourse about the role of sports in international politics. On the one hand, this issue might seem fairly straightforward because it only takes a quick overview of Qatar’s human rights record and international activity to question whether they ought to be hosting such a major world event. Freedom of expression is limited, with public opposition towards the government regularly resulting in arbitrary detainment and sentences based on unfair trials[3]. Doha has also been described by US officials as the biggest source of private donations to terrorism in Syria and Iraq[4], with huge sums of money being funnelled into Hamas[5], Al-Qaeda[6] and ISIS[7]. Qatar’s Kafala system has been widely described as modern-day slavery[8], with 94% of its workforce being from vulnerable foreign backgrounds[9], subject to dangerous working conditions[10] and unable to leave the country without permission from their employer[11]. If that wasn’t enough, homosexuality is strictly illegal and can result in up to 10 years imprisonment[12] or potentially death for Muslims under Sharia Law. Shocking testimonial evidence has now revealed that Qatari police actively hunt gay men by luring them into hotel rooms and, in some cases, gang raping them[13]. Altogether, the impression we get of Qatar is probably not one we would wish to celebrate on an international platform, so the Western backlash seems entirely justified. Despite vehement denial from fans, football has always been inherently political and there is a long history of it being weaponised by equally oppressive regimes. The World Cup has been hosted in fascist Italy in 1934, Argentina in 1978 under a military dictatorship and most recently Russia in 2018 even after the annexing of Crimea. Outside of FIFA, Real Madrid’s historic success was largely due to the influence of Franco[14], another fascist dictator, and the club continues to receive charitable status from the Spanish government. More recently, Newcastle United was purchased by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund[15], who will no doubt adopt the same strategy of avoiding financial fair play as Manchester City’s owners[16]. Looking towards sports as a whole, the recent Usyk Joshua rematch was hosted in Saudi Arabia, which has arguably an even worse record than Qatar, and the 2022 Winter Olympics took place in China, who have up to 1.2 million Uyghur Muslims detained in concentration camps[17]. It’s clear then that sportswashing is not a new phenomenon and yet the debate seems to have shifted slightly with this World Cup. Critics of the boycott movement have been quick to point out the Western hypocrisy towards Middle Eastern countries, when their own records are nothing to be proud of. Speaking to Emily Maitlis on the News Agents podcast, Piers Morgan pointed out that one in four countries in World Cup finals outlawed homosexuality and questioned whether Britain could be considered “morally clean enough” to host, given its involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq[18]. This argument becomes all the more poignant when considering that America will be hosting the event in 2026 and has faced heavy criticism for its stance on abortion, use of torture and the death penalty. The question that human rights activists need to provide a definitive answer to, therefore, is what the minimum standard ought to be for a country to host an event like the World Cup. Some have tried to shift the conversation away from moral condemnation and towards practical improvements, arguing that, as a bare minimum, host nations must be able to ensure the safety of all visiting fans. As a queer man, I can confidently confirm that Qatar does not meet these requirements but, having gone out to watch England play Iran wearing a pride flag and ended up becoming a victim of hate crime, I’m not sure the UK does either. Probably the strongest argument put forward against Qatar 2022 is that it has directly contributed towards modern slavery as the driving force behind their infrastructure investment. No amount of whataboutery can overcome the damning reality that 6500 migrant workers died building the stadiums we are seeing on TV[19], which makes this World Cup truly unique. However, even if we can overcome the aforementioned challenges to the Western perspective, this does not guarantee that a boycott is the right course of action. Aaron Bastani, cofounder of the alternative left-wing Novara Media platform, was quick to point out that refusing to watch a football match on TV is not a form of political action and that visiting the country, speaking to workers and Qataris is arguably a less passive form of engagement[20]. Fundamentally, it should not be the responsibility of fans and competing athletes to apply social pressure when the governing authorities, be it sporting or otherwise, hold the power in choosing whether or not to participate. That being said, the distinct lack of Western fans at the tournament has revealed just how little Qatar are expected to gain in the way of tourism and foreign approval, with the hosts having to resort to paying fans to fill empty seats[21]. What very few sources are talking about is how embarrassing this has been for Qatar, who seem to have been completely unprepared in dealing with the level of media exposure they have now opened themselves up to. Days before the first match, Qatari security threatened to break a Danish TV crew’s camera during a live broadcast[22] and rumours began to circulate that eight Ecuadorian players had been bribed $7.4 million to throw the opening match against the hosts[23]. Videos of fans singing “we want beer” also went viral[24], turning Twitter into a meme goldmine. This might all seem insignificant but, from the Qatari perspective, it’s a significant blow because they have been trying to buy their way into the world of football for over a decade, in an attempt to achieve soft power goals in the international community[25]. Qatari sports policy extends far beyond major sporting events like the World Cup and includes the acquisition of high-profile clubs like Paris Saint Germain, the building of a world-class airline, which sponsors other major teams like Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Roma as well as the positioning of itself as a leader in sports medicine[26]. What has actually been exposed here isn’t Qatar’s appalling human rights record, which everyone was already aware of, but rather their inability to integrate with football culture, despite colossal financial efforts. Bearing in mind the disruption to domestic football caused by the tournament being hosted in the winter, it could be argued that the real reason FIFA has received so much backlash is not due to a greater interest in LGBTQ+ rights but simply because, from a football fan’s perspective, this will be one of the worst World Cups in history. Overall, it’s difficult to know whether any progress has been made in discourse about the role of sport within international politics. On the one hand, with competing teams like Germany making bold protest gestures[27], FIFA is under more scrutiny than ever before and might be forced to respond to pressure from human rights activists. On the other hand, if the recent comments from Infantino about North Korea being a potential future host[28] are to be taken as anything more than a tantrum, then strict authoritarian regimes might become the new norm at the World Cup. Like it or not, fans need to accept that sportswashing is a real thing and decide what their stance is on football being used to legitimise oppressive regimes within the international community. Increased investment is, of course, a good thing for the sport but if this interest is coming only from Russian Oligarchs and Middle eastern sovereign wealth funds then the beautiful game is in danger of becoming nothing more than a play toy for some of the world’s most unsavoury people.