Catty
Monday 17 March 2014
One Step Closer To Global Domination For Poo-tin
The never ending crisis in Ukraine has hit boiling point as the 'perfectly legal' (according to the wonderful Russian leader Putin, or as I like to call him, Poo) referendum in the Crimea has voted to leave the Ukraine and become a part of Russia once again. Of course, the Cold War Communist leader Mikhail Gorbachev has popped up and argued that: "Crimea was previously attached to Ukraine under Soviet laws, that is, under the [Communist] party's laws and without asking the people. But now the same people have righted that mistake. This is to be welcomed."
The EU and US have deemed the referendum illegitimate and Kiev added that it will not recognise the results of the referendum. President Obama has made it very clear that Russia's continuation of its pursuit for the Crimea, he, along with the EU, would impose further sanctions. He warned, it would "achieve nothing except to further isolate Russia and diminish its place in the world".
However, despite the threats from the West, the Crimean parliament declares the region's independence and formally applies to join Russia.
THE REFERENDUM - "IT'S SO UNFAIR"
Most importantly, there is no option to keep things the way they are.
The referendum is written in 3 languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar.
The first question: Do you support reunifying Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?
The second: Do you support the restoration of the 1992 Crimean constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?
Lastly, the paper adds that choosing both options would make it 'invalid'.
REFERENDUM RESULT:
Election officials in Crimea, where pro-Russian forces are in control, said 97% of voters backed joining Russia with turnout at 83%.
CRIMEA'S DECLARATION
According to the declaration approved by Crimean MPs, the region:
- Becomes an independent state and applies to formally join Russia, with some autonomy
- Will adopt the Russia rouble as its currency within a month
- Will move to Moscow time (GMT+4 and two hours ahead of Kiev time) on 30 March
- Will offer Crimean soldiers the chance to join Russian military
THE MAN BEHIND IT ALL
I think this image really accurately shows what Putin is trying to do here. He, like Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev, basically want to control the whole world and I don't understand what he cannot get in his shiny, bald, kind of small, head...NO ONE IS EXPANDING THEIR EMPIRES ANYMORE. GET OVER IT.
Catty
Wednesday 12 March 2014
Paedophilia Scandal In Downing Street Sparks New Outrage, Old Questions
The revelations over Downing Street's failed cover up of senior aide David Rock's arrest for child pornography last week have thrown sex scandals in to the news yet again. Starting with Saville and others from the BBC in 2012, more recently schools and now unbelievably the Commons; these stories have rarely been absent from the papers over the last few years,
This to me, is worrying on multiple levels. Firstly the thought of a person trusted to formulate policy and advise on the running of the country being involved in child pornography is of course deeply troubling; you would think that for all our Government's faults they might be able to manage a decent back ground check on their staff. However what I find more shocking, especially in the more serious cases of serial offences such as Saville's, is that these people were never challenged by colleagues and that victims were continually ignored. Looking back at the details of the Saville cases now, it appears glaringly obvious that abuse was taking place, and the question to be asked therefore in this and all the other cases is why has it taken until now for it to be exposed. The answer is not particularly palatable; these paedophiles or sexual predators exposed recently all share one thing in common, other than the disgusting nature of their crimes, and that is that they are all in positions of power and trust. Radio DJs, head teachers, policy advisors; all positions that provide them with enough of a standing for a suspicious colleague to tell themselves 'surely not' and ignore it, or those who knew to simply turn a blind eye. This is what scares me, that we live in a society that despite our pretences at modernity still contains the level of blind deference to authority that allows crimes such as these to go unreported for so long .
The only positive to be drawn from this is that these crimes are finally emerging, maybe 50 years too late in many cases but this is still an important step and indicates the beginning of change. The argument made by some that these things should be left in the past and not 'dragged up for no reason' bemuses me, justice should be done no matter how late, for the sake of the victims still suffering from the consequences of crimes that could have been avoided were it not for the cowardice of far too many people. The positive effects of this are showing already, many more victims have been given the confidence to speak out in turn and one by one the failings of the past are being at least acknowledged if not repaired. The question of why they were allowed to happen in the first place however is one which will continue to be asked for a good while yet.
Caitlin
This to me, is worrying on multiple levels. Firstly the thought of a person trusted to formulate policy and advise on the running of the country being involved in child pornography is of course deeply troubling; you would think that for all our Government's faults they might be able to manage a decent back ground check on their staff. However what I find more shocking, especially in the more serious cases of serial offences such as Saville's, is that these people were never challenged by colleagues and that victims were continually ignored. Looking back at the details of the Saville cases now, it appears glaringly obvious that abuse was taking place, and the question to be asked therefore in this and all the other cases is why has it taken until now for it to be exposed. The answer is not particularly palatable; these paedophiles or sexual predators exposed recently all share one thing in common, other than the disgusting nature of their crimes, and that is that they are all in positions of power and trust. Radio DJs, head teachers, policy advisors; all positions that provide them with enough of a standing for a suspicious colleague to tell themselves 'surely not' and ignore it, or those who knew to simply turn a blind eye. This is what scares me, that we live in a society that despite our pretences at modernity still contains the level of blind deference to authority that allows crimes such as these to go unreported for so long .
The only positive to be drawn from this is that these crimes are finally emerging, maybe 50 years too late in many cases but this is still an important step and indicates the beginning of change. The argument made by some that these things should be left in the past and not 'dragged up for no reason' bemuses me, justice should be done no matter how late, for the sake of the victims still suffering from the consequences of crimes that could have been avoided were it not for the cowardice of far too many people. The positive effects of this are showing already, many more victims have been given the confidence to speak out in turn and one by one the failings of the past are being at least acknowledged if not repaired. The question of why they were allowed to happen in the first place however is one which will continue to be asked for a good while yet.
Caitlin
Monday 10 March 2014
"Deeply Troubling" - Will Another Inquiry Really Make A Difference?
In recent years it seems that the police have taken a real battering; first the allegations of a police cover up at Hillsborough and the controversy surrounding the Plebgate row. But now Home Secretary Theresa May has told MPs about "shocking" findings of an inquiry into the aftermath of the Stephen Lawrence murder over 20 years ago.
It is common knowledge the police handling of the Stephen Lawrence case following his murder in 1993 was an absolute disaster; the Macpherson inquiry told us that. It took just under 20 years for any form of justice to be delivered to his family, however tenuous it may have been - after all, only 2 of the 4 men accused of successfully been prosecuted. Since 1999 and the outcome of the Macpherson inquiry the police force have been tainted with the image of "institutional racism" and has long struggled to come out from under that shadow.
Early last month it was further alleged that the police also tried to cover up the mistakes that they made slandering the Lawrence family name and destroying essential evidence. A recent review from Mark Ellison QC revealed that a police undercover officer attached to the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) was working closely within the Lawrence family over the duration of the Macpherson inquiry, but this had been kept a secret. Ellison argues "the mere presence of an undercover Metropolitan police officer in the wider Lawrence family camp in such circumstances is highly questionable in terms of the appearance it creates of the police having a spy in the family's camp".
May has stated the review was "deeply troubling" and has now ordered another judge-led inquiry into the activities of the, now non-existent, SDS.
But is another judicial inquiry actually going to make a significant difference? It's questionable whether another public inquiry is actually going to reveal anything new; there can be little more evidence of police corruption from the original murder investigation. Especially since the SDS is no longer existence (having been disbanded in 2008) any further inquiry into their corruption is going to prove what has long been known; the 1993 Stephen Lawrence murder trial was inherently racist.
This begs the question whether it would be far more beneficial to actually begin charging officers in court for a suspected offence if there is a sufficient level of evidence to corruption. Currently the Home Secretary proposes introducing a new offence of "police corruption" because it is not possible to rely on the outdated offence of misconduct in public office regarding such cases. It's hard to believe there are not already laws against this kind of behaviour that could be used instead. Perhaps the sheer volume of money that is going to need to be spent on launching another inquiry would be far better spent prosecuting those have already been found to be corrupt. Surely this sends a better message? Be found to be corrupt and you will be prosecuted rather than be found to be corrupt and all you will receive is encouragement to resign.
Lawrence's family on the other hand fully support the "final nail in the coffin". For the family "the long fight for truth and justice continues" and this investigation is just a further factor confirming that the police cannot be "trusted". For this family their son's memory has been increasingly tainted by further revelations of police corruption. Arguably, these further revelations have become far more than the original trial, but has spawned into something far more important; the beginning of the end of police corruption.
At every turn it seems that the reputation of the police is taking a significant battering. The Hillsborough and Macpherson inquiries have left a lasting legacy of police corruption that the police have long found difficult to shake, even though huge leaps have been made to transform the police force since. It is hard to see what else another inquiry would do now the damage has already been done.
Alice
It is common knowledge the police handling of the Stephen Lawrence case following his murder in 1993 was an absolute disaster; the Macpherson inquiry told us that. It took just under 20 years for any form of justice to be delivered to his family, however tenuous it may have been - after all, only 2 of the 4 men accused of successfully been prosecuted. Since 1999 and the outcome of the Macpherson inquiry the police force have been tainted with the image of "institutional racism" and has long struggled to come out from under that shadow.
Early last month it was further alleged that the police also tried to cover up the mistakes that they made slandering the Lawrence family name and destroying essential evidence. A recent review from Mark Ellison QC revealed that a police undercover officer attached to the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) was working closely within the Lawrence family over the duration of the Macpherson inquiry, but this had been kept a secret. Ellison argues "the mere presence of an undercover Metropolitan police officer in the wider Lawrence family camp in such circumstances is highly questionable in terms of the appearance it creates of the police having a spy in the family's camp".
May has stated the review was "deeply troubling" and has now ordered another judge-led inquiry into the activities of the, now non-existent, SDS.
But is another judicial inquiry actually going to make a significant difference? It's questionable whether another public inquiry is actually going to reveal anything new; there can be little more evidence of police corruption from the original murder investigation. Especially since the SDS is no longer existence (having been disbanded in 2008) any further inquiry into their corruption is going to prove what has long been known; the 1993 Stephen Lawrence murder trial was inherently racist.
This begs the question whether it would be far more beneficial to actually begin charging officers in court for a suspected offence if there is a sufficient level of evidence to corruption. Currently the Home Secretary proposes introducing a new offence of "police corruption" because it is not possible to rely on the outdated offence of misconduct in public office regarding such cases. It's hard to believe there are not already laws against this kind of behaviour that could be used instead. Perhaps the sheer volume of money that is going to need to be spent on launching another inquiry would be far better spent prosecuting those have already been found to be corrupt. Surely this sends a better message? Be found to be corrupt and you will be prosecuted rather than be found to be corrupt and all you will receive is encouragement to resign.
Lawrence's family on the other hand fully support the "final nail in the coffin". For the family "the long fight for truth and justice continues" and this investigation is just a further factor confirming that the police cannot be "trusted". For this family their son's memory has been increasingly tainted by further revelations of police corruption. Arguably, these further revelations have become far more than the original trial, but has spawned into something far more important; the beginning of the end of police corruption.
At every turn it seems that the reputation of the police is taking a significant battering. The Hillsborough and Macpherson inquiries have left a lasting legacy of police corruption that the police have long found difficult to shake, even though huge leaps have been made to transform the police force since. It is hard to see what else another inquiry would do now the damage has already been done.
Alice
Gender Inequality - An International Problem
Having read Caitlin’s post I came away feeling a little
depressed as I realised that everything she said was true. The issue of gender
equality in Britain is becoming far more about statistics and “point scoring”
than about actually making any real difference. This got me thinking about
Britain’s position on gender equality in a wider context and how we compare to
other countries. My conclusion was to
think that at least I live in a country where a conscious effort is being made
to further equality between men and woman, and thank God I live in a country where
(at least by law) men and woman do have equal rights! Sadly this is not the
case in so many different places around the world. I was visiting my little 4
year cousin this weekend and as we were walking through town she pointed to a
wedding dress in a shop window and said; “I want to wear a dress like that when
I get married, and I want to look really pretty.” This simple and innocent wish
is one that all young girls should be able to enjoy and dreams of looking beautiful
on your wedding day when you are united with the man you have chosen and love
should be an achievable reality. In too many cases however a girl’s wedding can
become a day of dread and fear, as she waits terrified to be married to a complete
stranger she has never met. In fact “married” is not the right word, become the
“property of” would be more appropriate. Cases of child brides are particularly high in
some African countries, Nigeria having some of the highest statistics globally.
In July 2013 the Nigerian government carried out a review of its constitution
and decided to take a vote on whether clause 29, “any woman who is married
shall be deemed to be full of age”, should be removed. This clause enables
children under the age of 18 to get married, and once they have done so forces
them take on full the full responsibilities of marriage. This includes acting
as their husband’s sexual partner and giving birth to children. The Nigerian government
had the chance to change this clause and to protect children under the age of 18
from becoming adults before their time. The majority vote was not to change
this clause. This shows how deep rooted gender inequality still is in some
countries and how some societies still think it is acceptable to stifle a woman’s
rights in this way and stop them from having an equal role in their homes and communities.
It is evident to me that this is an international problem with many of the
causes being rooted in sexist constitutional laws and conventions. The key to
change is to first change the law, and then to change public opinion. In the
deep south of America it took a couple of Supreme Court rulings to end segregation
but much much longer to make people accept these rulings. Without this initial
constitutional change however people would never have been forced to act and
eventually think differently. A similar process needs to happen for woman’s
right and equality. The law needs to change making it absolutely impossible for
child marriages to legally happen, this then needs to be implemented and from
there change will start to take place. To my mind this is an international
political issue that needs to be addressed by governments globally if real
change is going take place. The UK, being one of the world’s leaders in
democracy and equality, must take a front line role in helping end these
equalities. Using our power and influence it could be possible for the UK government
to lead on significant change, putting pressure on developing countries to make
essential amendments to their constitutions so more girls can live lives free
from fear.
Ruth
Ruth
Friday 7 March 2014
International Women's Day - Why Do We Still Not Have More Female MPs?
Today is international women's day and so I thought it would be apt to kick off our blog with a discussion of female representation in politics today.
I was asked today by a boy in my politics class why I'm a feminist, because 'surely that is saying women are better than men, and what you want is equality.' This is a common misconception, my point is not that women are better than men (although they are) my point is that they can be just as intelligent/make just as good decisions/lead the country just as well as men and therefore deserve to make up more than the 22% of parliament than they currently do. He followed this up by saying that we are equal in law so it doesn't matter. This is true and obviously the situation for women in Britain is far superior than in many countries, but the idea that because of this we should sit back in complacent gratitude is a little insulting.
There is continuing need for change and nowhere is this more publicly obvious than in our parliament. The need for more female MPs is widely accepted and it is a good thing that efforts are being made to change this, but it is the manner in which politicians take up this task which I find irritating. It is as if female MPs have become statistics - a certain number of them are required in order to fill up the quotas and to make the party look better on paper, and this is made out to be a chore. It shows the state of our political system that all women short lists or A-lists should have had to be introduced. Why in a society as modernised and apparently equal as ours should local parties have to be cajoled into choosing a woman to represent them; I recognise the need for these mechanisms but that need should not exist.
Fundamentally all it comes down to is a power struggle between the two, still heavily male dominated, main parties. Miliband recently asked Cameron in PMQs about the lack of women on his front bench, rightly so as there were none. But he did this with a front bench packed unusually full of women, clearly in preparation for the question so that he could make a favourable comparison. It is this - when women are used by the male leaders of the parties merely as a method of political point scoring against their male opponents - that angers me more than the lack of women, because it shows no genuine desire for change or further equality but just the need to win a few more votes. A more cynical person would say that that is just how politics works, but I don't think that should be the case, or at least not where gender equality is concerned, and international women's day should be taken as a chance to start to try and change some of these long entrenched prejudices which are stopping women from entering parliament, but the question is how.
Caitlin
I was asked today by a boy in my politics class why I'm a feminist, because 'surely that is saying women are better than men, and what you want is equality.' This is a common misconception, my point is not that women are better than men (although they are) my point is that they can be just as intelligent/make just as good decisions/lead the country just as well as men and therefore deserve to make up more than the 22% of parliament than they currently do. He followed this up by saying that we are equal in law so it doesn't matter. This is true and obviously the situation for women in Britain is far superior than in many countries, but the idea that because of this we should sit back in complacent gratitude is a little insulting.
There is continuing need for change and nowhere is this more publicly obvious than in our parliament. The need for more female MPs is widely accepted and it is a good thing that efforts are being made to change this, but it is the manner in which politicians take up this task which I find irritating. It is as if female MPs have become statistics - a certain number of them are required in order to fill up the quotas and to make the party look better on paper, and this is made out to be a chore. It shows the state of our political system that all women short lists or A-lists should have had to be introduced. Why in a society as modernised and apparently equal as ours should local parties have to be cajoled into choosing a woman to represent them; I recognise the need for these mechanisms but that need should not exist.
Fundamentally all it comes down to is a power struggle between the two, still heavily male dominated, main parties. Miliband recently asked Cameron in PMQs about the lack of women on his front bench, rightly so as there were none. But he did this with a front bench packed unusually full of women, clearly in preparation for the question so that he could make a favourable comparison. It is this - when women are used by the male leaders of the parties merely as a method of political point scoring against their male opponents - that angers me more than the lack of women, because it shows no genuine desire for change or further equality but just the need to win a few more votes. A more cynical person would say that that is just how politics works, but I don't think that should be the case, or at least not where gender equality is concerned, and international women's day should be taken as a chance to start to try and change some of these long entrenched prejudices which are stopping women from entering parliament, but the question is how.
Caitlin
Wednesday 5 March 2014
Welcome
Hi,
Caitlin, Catty, Alice and Ruth (GirlsOnPolitics) would like to welcome you to our blog. We will be posting in the upcoming months about current affairs in the news which we believe should be commented on. We hope to offer a young persons perspective on what is going on in the world and hopefully inspire debate with other young people.
Feel free to comment and look out for posts as they start appearing!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)