#it is a human rights violation that I have to see a British person’s opinion on anything really

[like-the-new-gllry-replaced]

Damn... war criminal :(

Hello, Mr. Gaiman.

Recently, an old tweet of yours from 2015 resurfaced, in which you show support for Israel in the ongoing conflict. Is that still where you stand, or have you changed your mind in the past 6 years since that tweet was written?

The one where I say that Israel has the right to exist and that Palestine should be recognized as a state? I haven't changed my mind about either of those statements, or about any of the ones about people not killing other people and standing with the refugees and the children.

[sebastianshaw]

Hey there @vvithteeth! So, this isn’t EXACTLY what you asked for the readlist to focus on, but I think it’s worth checking out all the same for a general sense of Emma’s history leading up to her current character!

 EVIL 80s EMMA She’s not good reference for who Emma is NOW, but a good look at what she used to be, and what she’s overcome. I think looking at Emma when she was at her worst, helps one appreciate her at her best. If you see what she had to rise above in herself, you understand the self that she’s fighting back, you have a better appreciation for the kinds of things she’s tempted towards---and the kinds of things she no longer does.  X-Men (1st series) #129-131 is her introduction, as she tries to recruit Kitty Pryde to her school before Xavier does. One of the most chilling moments, for me personally, is when she threatens to destroy Storm’s mind so that she will be “human only in physical form” And then Jean drops a house on her, which is why she’s not involved in the Dark Phoenix saga, as she was still recovering.  Emma continues trying to get Kitty and other kids into her clutches in  Uncanny X-Men (1st series) #180 and  New Mutants (1st series) #15-17, but in New Mutants (1st series) #38-40 she finally manages it by exploiting their current fucked-up state and having her student Empath use his powers to manipulate Magneto.  But when the kids decide to return to Xavier’s school, Emma allows them to do so without a fight, and just tells them that they’ll always have a place with her if they need it. Which seems nice, but then her thought balloons reveal that this is just so the kids won’t believe it when Magneto tells them she’s evil. Firestar #1-4: Whoa mama, Emma is at max abusive here. See, she desires to eliminate Selene, and to this end she trains a young mutant she names Firestar. She does so by manipulating the girl, isolating her, convincing her that she NEEDS Emma to help her control her powers or else she’s dangerous to others, and even KILLS HER PET HORSE. Emma is someone who says “I love children. Teaching is my life.” and she MEANS IT, she has a genuine call to teach and her love for her students is her driving force, but here we see how she USED to treat her students. Then put her against who she is now, it’s a huge contrast. Honestly, I don’t know why SOME WRITERS want to erase her growth by pretending she was Actually Good All Along but yeah, here’s Bad Emma. This is who she fights. This is what she has risen above.  EMMA’S BACKSTORY ISSUES Emma’s history is. . . kind of multiple choice. She tells one version in Generation X #24, but this doesn’t fit at all with the Emma Frost miniseries that came out from 2003 -2004, which also doesn’t exactly fit with “X-Men Origins: Emma Frost” single-issue backstory. I personally would read the “X-Men Origins” one and at least the beginning of the miniseries, specifically the parts that deal with her home life. The reason is that both of these show how unhealthy Emma’s home was growing up, and how that made her who she is. When I saw I think Emma is “wired” to be a villain, I don’t mean I think she was born like that, but as in, I think her environment trained her to become like that. It’s kind of like how a lot of personality disorders aren’t something a person is born with, but come from being in a shitty environment where certain behaviors will help you survive better, and then even once that situation is over, you can’t get rid of those behaviors because it’s how your brain is wired now. That’s how I read Emma---she came out of this toxic, duplicitous environment of manipulation and abuse where she and her siblings were set against each other, and that’s now her default for how she interacts with the world, even though she was originally just a sweet little nerd who only wanted to be a teacher. The “Origins” one features a generic Shitty Abuser Shaw and isn’t as good as the more drawn-out miniseries, as it focuses more on physical abuse (like her father suddenly slapping her) to get a point across that her family is toxic, rather than the more drawn-out miniseries, which I think works better for explaining Emma’s specific brand of. . .Emma-ness. But the bit where her mother tells her that her father is hardest on her because he likes her most of all, is really important I think, since that reflects her relationship later with the Hellions, which is also shown in this. Because Emma is cruel to the Hellions, even though she loves them, and in fact because she loved them. Her love for them and her agony over their deaths is what drives her to join the X-Men in the first place.  As for which origin story is true. . .I think the miniseries one is probably MOST true, as it’s the only one that Emma herself isn’t telling as a story. But as the friend who helped me assemble this list puts it, “ Think of any origin story of Emma's as "a sort of fairy tale, a parable," where it's the theme that matters, not the precise events or timeline “ 90s EMMA Emma spent most of the 90s teaching Generation X. I don’t remember a lot of stuff for specifically what I’m talking about with her, but here are a couple issues that strike me as significant. Uncanny X-Men (1st series) #311-314: In  Uncanny X-Men (1st series) #281-284, the Hellions were killed and Emma Frost was left in a coma, her body taken care of by the X-Men. This is when she wakes up, takes over Iceman’s body, and goes on a rampage thinking she’s the prisoner of the X-Men. When she finds out what happened to her Hellions, she collapses in despair and turns herself over to the X-Men. This is her turning point. This is when we found out Emma Frost had a soul. That she LOVED the Hellions. That they were not just tools. And there’s this one line in the yellow narrative boxes that really sticks out: “As the Hellfire Club’s White Queen, she spent the better part of her life traversing from one mind to another, violating the very essence of anyone she so chose. Losing herself in the memories of others. Altering, at times, the opinions of those who opposed her. This time is different. This time it is about survival. This time. . .it’s for the children.” The words are echoed when she agrees to join Krakoa's Quiet Council, after Charles and Erik tell her their plan and convince her it might just work. "One more time, then. For the children." Emma’s true love, in my opinion, isn’t Scott. Nor is it Namor. It’s teaching.  Emma becomes the teacher to Generation X, as mentioned, and in Generation X (1st series) #18-19, during the Onslaught crisis, she’s so terrified of losing them like she did the Hellions, that she snapped, took the kids to a safehouse in Canada, and put them under her telepathic control for their own safety. This is an Emma who has learned that abusing her students isn’t the right way, but still doesn’t respect their autonomy or consent even as she’s desperately trying to protect them, and has to learn from Monet (who is. . . .actually not Monet) that this isn’t the right way to do it either. Emma did not grow up with adult models who showed her how to love and care for a child, she has to figure it out herself, and it’s a rocky journey at times, even though she has the best of intentions. I think this is a good issue to show an Emma who is in the process of evolving. She’s getting better, but she still hasn’t got it “right” yet.  CURRENT-ERA EMMA Emma really becomes the Emma we know with Grant Morrison’s New X-Men in the early 2000s. This is where she starts affecting a British accent, calling everyone darling, and the delightfully witty Queen of Mean while also still a devoted teacher with trauma over losing her students. She always was witty and a little mean, but Morrison takes these traits up to 11 and gives Emma the foundation of what a lot of writers would build upon. It’s also when she begins her telepathic affair/seduction of Scott, which is a more than slightly problematic dynamic, as I’ve discussed. Also, this is when she got her now-famous diamond form.  We get a lot of lovely Emma nastiness in this series. New X-Men #128-139 all have lots of great moments for her where she’s just WICKED yet still on the side of the angels, and New X-Men Annual 2001 starts us off.  However, character-wise, I think what really comes out here is Emma going from blaming her past actions on substances (she tells Scott in the New X-Men Annual 2001 that she just probably out of her mind on drink and drugs all those times she was doing bad things) to being forced to face her past and herself for the first time when confronted by Jean & the Phoenix in New X-Men #139. It’s the first time we get a look at what Emma’s family and home life was like, as well as the first time she’s established as having a brother, but more than that is the emotion that gets brought in. This is also when Morrison decided to retcon the Hellfire Club as a strip joint (which I hate and also shows up in Emma’s “Origins” story) but that’s neither here nor there. The point is, Jean makes Emma face all her flaws and pain and nasty, most vulnerable parts of herself.  Emma is left mentally broken...then one page later, physically, shattered by a diamond bullet that we later find out was fired by none other than Esme, the Stepford Cuckoo whom Emma later says reminded her most of herself. There is definitely poetic symbolism there. As my friend put it “This cycle of her students dying and Emma losing it and trying again but never facing the roots of her issues goes on and on until her roots literally kill her, and Jean of all people resurrects her. Jean, who saw right through Emma, saw something there worth saving, and literally and metaphorically put her back together again.” The next place I’d go is Astonishing X-Men, which is the first time Emma and Kitty work together. Kitty HATES Emma at this point, because, as she points out, Emma is the villain in her origin story. And Emma KNOWS this. That’s why she WANTS Kitty there. She knew that Kitty would keep an eye on her, wouldn’t trust her, and that’s what Emma WANTS, because Emma doesn’t trust HERSELF. So this shows that Emma KNOWS her moral compass is a very flawed one, and that she WANTS to be better so consciously that she’s getting someone she knows doesn’t like or trust her to be around because she knows she’ll watch her like a HAWK. This also means Emma is admitting she can fail, and giving some control to someone else.  There’s. . . so much that happens from here. Utopia. Phoenix Five. The Terrigen Mists shit. Secret Empire. I feel like there are probably great Emma readlists out there that include these, but honestly I just kinda zoned out through a lot of it. These are some additional read lists for her I found: https://lornahs.tumblr.com/post/87230882649/where-to-start-reading-emma-frost-lets-start  https://www.reddit.com/r/comicbooks/comments/2bwwok/emma_frost_reading/  It’s definitely a LOT and I wish you the best of luck tackling it! Also, I wouldn’t feel you have to read EVERYTHING, or incorporate everything into your depiction. Pick and choose what you feel works best for your version!

[melias-cimitiere]

MINORITY REPORT

People who are interested in being honest, true to themselves and to others, eager to learn truth about things (scientific, historical, etc) and acquire knowledge, please keep reading. Everyone else, carry on with your daily activities; this article will clearly not impact on you in any positive way.

There has been a growing concern during the last few years that people have a tendency to “save the tree and burn the forest”; this is a mentality of gross generalizations, over-simplistic attitudes towards right and wrong, and superficial ideological bubbles that do not take into account reality. When historical truth is no longer convenient, when people forget the right use of words and terms and come up with the trendy, politically correct speech while disregarding the established definitions, then watch out: Big Brother is about (the 1984 George Orwell concept).

Minorities’ rights

There is a large number of people who tend to be sympathetic towards any groups, just because they are labelled as a minority. Instead of examining what they stand for and who they truly are (given a historical perspective), they moralize on their behalf and fiercely try to protect them, with a simplistic and gullible attitude. Let’s try and ask some basic questions:

Are their rights more/less important than anyone else’s?

We should be talking about human rights, and not minorities’ rights. If these groups are human groups, then they have some rights; these rights are protected by United Nations and various Constitutions, and political assemblies worldwide, and any proven violation is condemned. Why should any human group have more (or less) rights than any other group?

Are the minorities always correct?

Of course not. Whoever believes this tends to be extremely naïve. For example, amidst the minorities hide some rather loathsome groups (or individuals), such as Nazis, KKK, international terrorists (like Isil/Isis/Daesh, Al-Qaeda etc). And what about the minority groups of suicide cults, slavery rings, drug-dealers, “black market” merchants (of weapons, substances, toxins, organs etc)? What about serial killers or pedophiles? As you can see, membership in a minority group doesn’t automatically make you correct in all things. 

Issue of historical guilt

What is trendy or fashionable doesn’t make it necessarily better or right. Nowadays it is not trendy or fashionable to expose certain historical facts because certain groups feel discomfort. This is not new; in fact, it has been an issue with history and with science since the very beginning. When Galileo showed the Earth is round and spins around itself, it caused certain “waves”; people even demanded his death. We still have the Flat Earth Society despite scientific evidence of the contrary. With regards to history and warfare, you will not find any parties that are not guilty. In fact, nearly every nation in the world has committed atrocities, vandalism, slavery, aggressive occupation and its army/warriors raping innocent victims etc. In the history of Mankind there are very few true innocents. 

If we do not acknowledge such occurrences as inherent in human nature and as potential threats for everyone, we are doomed to repeat them in the future. Fascism and Nazism is not only a German thing; Slavery isn’t just a “white thing”; Colonialism isn’t just a British thing. We need to address the issues, recognize and study what makes these happen, and confront them. We must all stand united against this, and not devolve into group mentality and us against the others. We need to challenge our own mindset and free ourselves from pre-conceived ideas. Minorities get overly sensitive when people criticize certain behaviors or the past. And yet, how can one hope to be free from prejudice, when one refuses to see the truth, opting to be part of the herd? 

What is Racism?

“Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”

“The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”

[Oxford Dictionary]

“policies, behaviours, rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race”.

Also:

“harmful or unfair things that people say, do, or think based on the belief that their own race makes them more intelligent, good, moral, etc. than people of other races”.

[Cambridge University]

So as you can see, racism doesn’t have to do with minorities specifically. Minority groups can also be racist to majority groups, or some nations/people claim to be superior or “God’s chosen” while this is blatantly racist and, by definition, a harmful and unfair behavior. On a final note, just because certain groups have been persecuted historically, this doesn’t justify them to persecute others while claiming to be victims of racism, as this would be hypocrisy.

What is Discrimination? How is it different to Prejudice?

1. “The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.”

2. “Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another”.

Usually people tend to forget the second definition, and over time, discrimination becomes something negative. What about, “a discriminative mind is a mark of wisdom?” Should you not pick and choose according to preference? Are all things the same? Obviously not. Prejudice, on the other hand, is always negative. It is wrong in so many ways to be prejudiced against people of any group; this doesn’t just apply to minorities. However, that doesn’t mean that a person cannot choose what he/she prefers. Preference is an act of freedom. 

Some groups seem to imply that if a person says that he/she is heterosexual, that it means that they are homophobic. I hate prejudice; I support equal rights. I also fully support the second definition of discrimination; I do this all the time. I choose what I like to eat, where to hang out and who to have sex with. I have specific gender preferences; my choices don’t make me phobic of the other minority groups (another wrong use of the word phobic, meaning fear of something. Not wanting to have sex with specific types of peoples doesn’t mean I fear them, it simply means that I don’t like it and I prefer something else). I also choose what to read, what to reject, what kinds of music or movies to watch and so on. I’m sure you do all that too. So remember to use the words correctly.

What is antisemitism?

Semitic groups have been known to spread to a vast region in the Eastern Mediterranean all the way down to the Persian Gulf. Examples are: the Canaanites, the Akkadians, the Babylonians, and the Chaldeans that settled the Mesopotamian South where the Euphrates empties into the Gulf (from the tribe Kaldu – a Semitic tribe from the Amorites), the Jebusites, the Jewish tribes, the Arameans, and many more. So to pick just one of them and say it is the only Semitic group is doing disservice to the rest and is also appropriating people’s ethnic background. 

Also, just because several of these groups were historically persecuted (Jews, Palestinians, small minorities in Iraq and Syria, etc) doesn’t give them immunity from blame when they are the ones committing crimes of racism or persecution. It has become a common thing in certain places from the Levant that one cannot bring about anything in discussion relating history or politics, from fear of offending their sensibilities. This has to stop. People should be freely discussing their opinions, and with the right evidence, they should be able to accept new data. Believing that people from minorities have indemnity from scrutiny is a naïve and socially dangerous stance.

Stereotyping and Reverse Pendulum Mentality

Protect battered mothers / women (but not battered fathers / men?)

Protect raped females (but what about raped males?)

Protect a specific group of a certain ethnic background while turning a blind eye towards other groups of different backgrounds whose rights are violated.

A child goes first (but what about elderly, mentally ill etc which are categories often neglected?)

Homophobic is a bad thing (and not heterophobic?)

A group or groups of different gender definitions must be protected (but shouldn’t all people’s choices on this matter be protected, no matter what?)

It is common, when society realizes that the rights of a certain minority have been violated (ie in the case of persecution, slavery, racist hostility and even killings because of that like the pogroms against Jews and other races), that society goes overboard and through overprotecting, refuse even the slightest of blame, even in documented cases. And yet, there have been plenty of people belonging to minority groups who were guilty of various crimes, including slavery, discrimination or collaborating with the enemy (and all these have been documented also). Minorities can easily become oppressors and they have done so, from ancient to modern times, as any student of history can testify.

Politically correct

We need to see some definitions of this; in the past, I used to pay a lot of notice and try to accommodate to that standard. Not so much now, and I will explain why.

“The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.” [Oxford dictionary]

“Conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated” [Merriam-Webster]

“Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided.” [Cambridge University]

So look again the above definitions and note the words ‘perceived’ in the first, ‘conforming to a belief’ in the second, and ‘believes’ in the third. All these are subjective, thus arbitrary. If one wishes to be well-behaved, then by all means, one should take into account the sensibilities of others over various issues. However, in matters of spirituality, philosophy, history or science, one should care more about the objective truth and less about how people feel about certain aspects of the truth.

     Examples include some of the following:

How many people died in a genocide (numbers differ according to which side you ask);

Is a certain behavior sign/symptom of mental illness (again, the psychiatrists will often tell a different story compared to members of various groups);

Are all people equal? (This often gets mistranslated as an inflammatory comment, aiming to annoy others meaning that they don’t deserve equal opportunities and rights. I am talking about people being equal in skills, IQ, innate abilities etc. Anyone who believes they are equal, must believe in that the humans are a race of robots coming from the same factory and production line.)

Thought Police vs Right to Free Speech

Seeking to prevent possible injustices before they even occur… seems pro-active and good, doesn’t it? Has anyone watched the film, Minority Report? If no, watch it. What about, Fahrenheit 451? Another excellent film (a bit old but a masterpiece). Do you believe in freedom? Can you say what you think without fear? Ask yourself if you should double-guess yourself every time you need to say or write something. People around you are a varied lot; many will not agree with what you say or do. Should you be made to feel intimidated by that? I don’t think so. You have a right to believe what you want and also your freedom of speech is safeguarded by the constitution.

Cultural Appropriation

A touchy subject for a lot of people. “Closed religions”? Kabbalah, deities, voodoo, Hindu beliefs, Native Indian spirit animals etc… the list goes on and on. Are we serious here? I mean, who makes these things up? Wake up people! There is NO closed religion. If a spiritual person or a person with respect approaches a concept or a deity/spirit and that deity/spirit accepts them, then it’s not up to the people to judge badly and condemn this approach! I can (and do) use whatever I want; my judgement is all I need, and that makes me a free man. Please, do not bend to such criticism; learn to think for yourselves. Learn, and experience things directly, if possible. You are born Free, like me. Do not bend to slave mentalities.

Constitutional Rights

Lastly, a bit of the obvious. Surely you are aware that any constitution of a country where there’s democracy and not a totalitarian regime safeguards certain freedoms. One of them is the right to think, speak, write and believe freely. Read up on your rights! Don’t take for granted what other people want you to believe; research yourself and then put them in their place. Protect those rights. People died to establish and to protect them in the past; now you got the ball, it’s your call.

[pictureamoebae]

idk how i'm supposed to reconcile my desire to not see the tories in office with my continually reinforced belief that labour leadership in general and jeremy corbyn in particular actively despise jewish people and wish me and my kind harm. there's been too many incidents, each one fouler than the last, over the past months. i want johnson out but i have no faith in the alternative's desire to keep me safe either and idk what to do

Politics.

A simple answer to a complex problem. And now a complex post to a simple question.

This will be very long, but I’m not going to put it behind a cut because it’s too important.

Nothing I say here will cut through to make you feel any more or less safe. What I want to do first is to say I do not doubt for one moment you have fears. Whatever I say next comes from as much a place of wanting you to be and feel safe as anything else. Please keep that in mind if you at any point think I’m attacking your deeply-held fears. I am not. If I’m attacking anything, it’s those who seek to weaponise your fears for their own gain.

While I continue, I’d ask you to keep asking these questions: who is saying things against Corbyn, what are their politics, what kind of world do they want to see, who do they want me to vote for, what are their interests (not as in, do they like music, but as in where do their political interests lie, how do they benefit from society under different governments)? These are good questions to ask when you hear any kind of political claim being made, whether it’s a manifesto pledge, a jibe at a political opponent, or an otherwise seemingly ‘neutral’ article in a newspaper. Everything is stated from a political position, no matter how hard someone works to hide that. And some people work very hard to hide it. Why?

First, I’ll talk about Jeremy Corbyn and his beliefs. You’ll have seen, no doubt, the picture of him being arrested for protesting against apartheid in South Africa? I’ll use this as a jumping off point because it’s in the news today. It’s emblematic of Corbyn’s lifelong approach.

One of the things that Corbyn’s supporters love about him in particular is that he’s a peacemaker. It’s also one of the things that frustrates us the most. 

Love: because his approach to foreign policy has always been one of recognising the necessity of dialogue. It proves an easy stick to beat him with because it’s seen him working to bring all sides together in Northern Ireland (something the Conservative government at the time was also doing in their own way, along with others in Labour), or trying to diffuse tensions and encourage constructive talks in the Middle East, for example. It’s why he was so outspoken in his opposition to illegally invading Iraq (we hit upon one reason here why Tony Blair might have a personal interest in discrediting Corbyn: his involvement in Iraq would be under more scrutiny with a Corbyn-led Labour Party in charge). The list is endless, and he has been proven time and time again to be on the right side of history when it comes to his desire to make peace, not war.

Frustrates: because his natural desire to make peace sees him be far too conciliatory when it comes to both internal Labour Party matters and his approach to media hostility. Backing down on open selection (also known as mandatory reselection) will be seen as one of the biggest mistakes of his leadership in years to come. Time and time again he’s held out the olive branch because his opponents demand it, only to see them set fire to the branch, crush the ashes beneath their heels, and then turn around and say “pass us an olive branch”. One criticism we hear a lot is “Corbyn isn’t a leader”, and the only time I will ever agree that his leadership has been lacking is on this matter. He should have been more forthright and stood his ground. But such is the contradiction at the heart of what makes him the good person he is: that’s not his style. He’s a peacemaker.

Back to his arrest for protesting against South African apartheid. Corbyn served on the national executive of the Anti-Apartheid Movement that was “a British organisation that was at the centre of the international movement opposing the South African apartheid system and supporting South Africa’s non-White population who were persecuted by the policies of apartheid.” At the time, the Tories were pro-apartheid, and could even sometimes be found wearing “hang Nelson Mandela” stickers at their conferences and party events. Standing up so proudly against apartheid wasn’t a popular position to hold at the time. And yet he did it, because it was right.

In 1985 Corbyn was appointed national secretary of Anti-Fascist Action. I don’t know how old you are or your familiarity with British political history, but anti-fascist action in the UK has always centred around defending Jewish people from fascist groups and attack. In the 1970s he organised a demonstration against a National Front march through Wood Green. The National Front were on the rise in the 70s, and it’s seen as something of a golden era by today’s fascists in groups like the EDL who would take us back to that, and go beyond it, if they could. This is just one example of Corbyn directly putting his body on the line to defend Jewish people and others against fascists, following in the footsteps of his mother, who was at the Battle of Cable Street. In his role as parliamentarian, he signed numerous Early Day Motions condemning antisemitism, stretching back decades before he became leader, something that has been recognised in the Times of Israel. In 1987 Corbyn joined Jewish campaigners to stop the demolition of a Jewish cemetery by Islington Council (the demolition was, I note, supported by Margaret Hodge). More recently, in 2010, he petitioned parliament to help resettle Yemeni Jews fleeing from conflict. 

There are countless other examples of his work to support Jewish people, as well as him being a friend to pretty much every other minority people you can think of. It’s not just empty words and platitudes, it’s real action, for decades.

Let me give you an extract from an ‘expose’ meant to discredit Corbyn, and tell me what you think of him after this:

“Dressed in a dirty jacket and creased trousers, Jeremy Corbyn arrived in Westminster as a new MP in the summer of 1983.

He immediately told friends that Parliament was ‘a waste of time’ with no relevance to his Islington constituents, especially the immigrant communities.

To meet them, he set up offices in the Red Rose Centre in Holloway where his door was always open to a tide of human misery: Cypriots, Jamaicans, Indians, Pakistanis, South Africans, South Americans, Somalis, West Saharans and Kurds all sought his help.

The procession of petitioners reinforced his conviction that Britain should allow unrestricted immigration – and offer the world’s destitute an open invitation to share our wealth.

In his opinion, all immigrant communities were victims of white imperialists, and the British state owed them a financial obligation. Anyone who disagreed was racist.”

This was intended as a ‘gotcha’ to prove to right wing readers what a dangerous man Corbyn is. They’re right, he is dangerous. Dangerous to fascists. Dangerous to racists. Dangerous to anyone who wants to take away your liberty, to anyone who wants to harm the vulnerable in society.

So how do we align all of this with what we’ve heard in the press over the past five years? Hopefully the extract above, which was printed in the Daily Mail, starts to make it clear what’s going on. Corbyn has always, throughout his career and before he was elected to parliament, fought tirelessly for peace, for reconciliation, for minority populations here and around the world, including Jewish people. Even before he became leader (outshining even Blair’s popularity at his height among party members), there were people of all political stripes who wanted to discredit him, not even necessarily because they disliked him, but because they despised what he stood for and continues to stand for. 

We’re not just talking about people who want to be able to say and do racist things, but people who have an interest in our political and economic system continuing as it has so they can maintain their economic, social, cultural, and political power. It’s impossible to overstate how important and crucial this point is. It cuts to the heart of everything.

Look at this, from the Labour manifesto that was launched today:

Introduce a War Powers Act to ensure that no prime minister can bypass Parliament to commit to conventional military action. Unlike the Conservatives, we will implement every single recommendation of the Chilcot Inquiry.

Conduct an audit of the impact of Britain’s colonial legacy to understand our contribution to the dynamics of violence and insecurity across regions previously under British colonial rule.

Invest an additional £400 million in our diplomatic capacity to secure Britain’s role as a country that promotes peace, delivers ambitious global climate agreements and works through international organisations to secure political settlements to critical issues.

Establish a judge-led inquiry into our country’s alleged complicity in rendition and torture, and the operation of secret courts.

Issue a formal apology for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and hold a public review into Britain’s role in the Amritsar massacre.

Allow the people of the Chagos Islands and their descendants the right to return to the lands from which they should never have been removed.

Uphold the human rights of the people of West Papua and recognise the rights of the people of Western Sahara.

Immediately suspend the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen and to Israel for arms used in violation of the human rights of Palestinian civilians, and conduct a root-and-branch reform of our arms exports regime so ministers can never again turn a blind eye to British-made weapons being used to target innocent civilians.

Reform the international rules-based order to secure justice and accountability for breaches of human rights and international law, such as the bombing of hospitals in Syria, the illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip, the use of rape as a weapon of war against the Rohingya community in Myanmar and the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians in Yemen.

We will work through the UN and the Commonwealth to insist on the protection of human rights for Sri Lanka’s minority Tamil and Muslim populations.

Appoint human-rights advisers to work across the Foreign Office and government to prioritise a co-ordinated approach to human rights.

Advocate for human rights at every bilateral diplomatic meeting.

There are an awful lot of consequences to carrying out these policies. For example, Tony Blair and David Miliband are implicated in rendition, and it stands to reason they will do everything in their power to ensure they aren’t brought to justice for it, or even exposed to scrutiny over it. On the matter of arms sales, not only does it have ramifications for one of the most profitable industries, it also cuts straight to the heart of how and why we choose the international allies we do, and the power relationships inherent in that. This isn’t just a disagreement of opinion, this is threatening to change how we’ve done international politics for a generation or more. It doesn’t get more serious than this. As far as anyone who has an interest in things staying as they are, he must be stopped, by any means necessary.

Let’s talk about antisemitism. Labour is a broad party that reflects a wide range of people and a wide range of opinions from all walks of life and from all corners of the country. It stands to reason that every opinion, thought, and position you can imagine exists in wider society will be found somewhere among Labour members, by virtue of it being a mass membership party. There are terfs in the Labour Party, there are racists in the Labour Party, there are homophobes in the Labour Party, there are sexists in the Labour Party, there are antisemites in the Labour Party – because there are all those kinds of people in our country. There are all those kinds of people in the SNP. There are all those kinds of people in the Tory Party. There are all those kinds of people in the Green Party. There are all those kinds of people in the Lib Dems. What it speaks to, primarily, is the work we have to do, as a country, to educate and counter those bigotries across society. Where they rear their head within the party they must be stamped out immediately. It must be made clear that a socialist party is no place for bigotry and hatred. I think I’ve made it clear above that Corbyn is not an antisemite, and in fact has spent his entire life fighting against antisemitism, including putting his body on the line.

It has become increasingly striking that, over the past five years, Labour has been held to a far greater standard than any other party when it comes to antisemitism or any other kind of bigotry. Boris Johnson’s comments about watermelon smiles and letterboxes get passing comment, Sayeeda Warsi saying that Islamophobia is rampant in the Tory Party and she doesn’t feel safe there is quickly swept under the carpet. Compare the endless months of hand-wringing over Labour’s discussions over adopting the IHRA working definition of antisemitism to the Conservative’s refusal to adopt similar recommendations by the Muslim Council of Britain over anti-Muslim bigotry.

Yesterday a prominent political journalist tweeted that a Tory candidate had been expelled for antisemitism, and in the same tweet she said that a chair of a local CLP (constituency Labour Party – CLPs are the local organising groups for each constituency in the country) had resigned. In the tweet she linked to a BBC article about the CLP chair resignation. Let’s look at what’s going on here. Firstly, she gave both of these news items the same weight by putting them together in the same tweet. Second, she only linked to the story about the CLP chair, suggesting that was the more important of the two. The CLP chair resigned not over antisemitism or anything like that, but because they were disgruntled at how the selection for their local parliamentary candidate went. If you’ve ever been to a CLP meeting you’ll know that everyone is disgruntled about something. It’s hardly national news. But of course, it is. Because it was decided at some point over the past five years that everything that happens in the Labour Party must be forensically dissected and assessed as a real blow to Corbyn, or proof that Corbyn is terrible. Whereas the real story, that a Tory candidate was expelled for antisemitism, is barely a footnote. Why? Keep asking why.

I don’t know what your opinions are about politics in the United States, or whether you follow it at all, but when asking ‘why?’ it might be useful to think about what’s happening over there and how it compares and contrasts to what’s happening over here. Think about the reaction to Ilhan Omar, the inherent anti-Muslim sentiment and racism in opposition to her, and the way her critics have tried to suggest she is antisemitic. Think about those progressives in the UK who support her and see it as ridiculous scaremongering with a political motive, and how some of those are the same people who throw as much invective at Corbyn as they can. Think about the differences in how progressive politics in the US and progressive politics in the UK are presented. Think about how the same accusations of antisemitism are made against Bernie Sanders, a Jewish man who is open about his support for Israel. Think about those things and ask whether, perhaps, the wider politics of those involved might be behind some of what’s going on.

I’ll end by telling you about me and where I live. I live in Stoke-on-Trent. We have three MPs across the city: Gareth Snell here in Stoke Central, Ruth Smeeth in Stoke North, and a Tory in Stoke South, who in 2017 very narrowly beat Rob Flello, who had been the Labour MP there for quite a while. Rob is a Catholic, and has centred his Catholicism in a lot of his politics. Ruth is Jewish, and has been one of the high profile voices to speak against Corbyn. Despite going to university with Gareth and my husband working with him for years in our previous MP’s office and being his close friend, I don’t know his religious affiliation, if he even has one. I disagree with all three of them on the basis of their politics. 

I’m very glad Rob is no longer in the party, he was an embarrassment, and should have gone years ago. Rob used his Catholicism as an excuse to pursue some awful political positions (against abortion, for example), all the while being an enormous hypocrite (I won’t spill the tea about his personal life, it would be unbecoming). I think you’d agree that it’s possible for me to disagree with his politics, and to even discuss how they intersected with his version of Catholicism, without being bigoted towards Catholics or wishing them harm or wanting Catholicism to be wiped out. My mother is Catholic. (I’m forever grateful her and my dad decided not to assign me a religion, instead leaving it up to me. Their one moment of progressive thinking!)

I disagree with Gareth’s politics, despite as I explained my and my husband’s history of friendship with him, and will be eternally angry with myself for signing his nomination papers in 2017 when he was selected as our candidate to stand against Paul Nuttall of UKIP in the infamous Stoke Central by-election. What’s important here, in our relationship and out of it, is the politics. My anger isn’t at his life, his family, or whatever faith he does or does not hold, but rather at his deceit towards us in the CLP, and his awful, awful approach in parliament towards Brexit.

I disagree with Ruth’s politics, as does my husband, despite him campaigning very hard and being instrumental locally for getting her selected as the candidate for Stoke North back in the day. I disagree with her handling of Brexit, which follows the same line as Gareth’s. They’re both at risk of losing their seats at the election, and have calculated that by doing all they can to seem as though they are Brexit MPs they’ll claw back the support Labour has already lost to the Tories and Brexit Party, not realising that support left long ago and won’t come back just because they personally keep voting against the Labour whip. In the meantime they’re making it increasingly difficult for us to oppose no deal or Johnson’s hard Brexit. I also disagree with Ruth because she’s helped weaponise instances of antisemitism as a way to discredit the left. Just as I disagree with any MP who has done that, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. Because, as I have said before, it’s the politics that matter. Just as I can disagree with Rob, even on matters that centre his Catholicism, without it being an attack on Catholics, so too can I disagree with Ruth, even on matters that centre her being Jewish, without it being an attack on Jewish people. And this is where we get into the nuts and bolts of the thing.

I met Chris Williamson a while back, bumping into him at Derby train station. My husband knows him (he knows everyone in the Labour Party, social butterfly that he is), and so we went to say hi. It was the first time I’d met him. I was very clear that, despite my anxiety and hate of confrontation, were he to say anything diminishing antisemitism I was going to speak out. And I did, because he did. The weird thing about Chris is that he was long known as a wonderful anti-racism campaigner and a true friend of the vulnerable and minorities. Something twisted him. Over the past few years it’s like he decided to court controversy, to push as many buttons as he could, to see how far he could go, digging his heels in no matter the cost. I think he should have been kicked out a long time ago, once he made it clear he didn’t care about the damage he caused, either to the Party or to Jewish people, because he was on his own political crusade. I don’t believe he is personally antisemitic, but there comes a point where his actions speak louder than his words, and the effects of his behaviour might as well have an antisemitic root for the harm they cause. I’m glad he was finally kicked out, and I’m furious he’s standing as an independent, risking turning Derby North Tory at a time when the very people he says he cares about, the poor, the vulnerable, migrants, disabled people, need a Labour government more than anything else and cannot survive another five years of Tory rule.

The very real fears Jewish people hold have been weaponised by the right, who always try to seed fear over hope because it gets them votes, and likewise the whole resulting situation has been further exacerbated by people like Chris. I’m infuriated by it all, not least because I don’t doubt that a high proportion of British Jewish people genuinely are scared. But because of political interests and political positioning, their fears are being exploited and redirected away from where they should be to precisely where they shouldn’t. It should be clear to you from what I’ve posted above that you’d be hard pressed to find a non-Jewish MP who has worked more tirelessly than Jeremy Corbyn to protect and defend Jewish people against fascists, just as he has worked tirelessly to defend all minorities. At a time when the far right is on the march, burning synagogues, shooting gay people and Sikhs and Muslims, to have our attention diverted away to focus on the best hope we’ve had in generations to stop it is madness. It’s motivated by political interest, whether that’s on behalf of the Conservative party and general right wing politics (let’s not forget some important points here, like Stephen Pollard being a staunchly right wing Conservative supporter, or like Maureen Lipman announcing her ditching Labour not once, but twice – the first time being under Ed Miliband’s leadership (himself Jewish), because of his support for Palestinian rights). Politics is at the heart of it all. 

Politics is at the heart of it all.

Politics is at the heart of it all, and just as working class people are used as pawns, pitted against migrants and having their fears about precarity and poverty and security weaponised to divert attention away from the real causes of their immiseration, so too are Jewish people being used as pawns, having their real fears exploited to discredit the only chance we’ll have in our lifetimes of defeating the right.

As I said at the start, I don’t expect what I’ve written here will make you feel any more safe. I hope it doesn’t make you feel any less safe. I just ask that you think about the politics of it all, and remember those questions I asked at the beginning: who is saying things against Corbyn, what are their politics, what kind of world do they want to see, who do they want me to vote for, what are their interests, how do they benefit from society under different governments? I ask you to remember that everything is stated from a political position, no matter how hard someone works to hide that. And that some people work very hard to hide it. Why?

Lastly, I want you to know that the very core of my politics is justice. Justice, empathy, fairness. I couldn’t be a socialist without those tenets at the centre of it all. Our world is burning. Our people are dying. This is all only going to get worse. Official figures are that 130,000 people have died unnecessarily as a direct result of Tory austerity. Those figures were released some time ago, so it is surely more now. Millions have already been displaced around the world as a result of the climate catastrophe. Millions more will be displaced, in ever more horrific events, over the next few years. As people have to move around the globe we will see increasing international tensions, bloody clashes, inhumane national policies aimed at keeping those people away, more bodies in trucks, more children washed up dead on beaches, more people killed in sectarian wars. If we continue to turn a blind eye to the rise of the right, we’re condemning millions to untold suffering. If we re-elect a Tory government we’re condemning millions to untold suffering. If we turn to centrism, a system responsible for that rise of the right, a system that has no answers and wants to simply manage things around the edges, we are condemning millions to untold suffering.

What kind of world do you want to see? What kind of world do those who disparage Corbyn despite his well-documented history want to see?

Politics. The simple answer to the complex problem.

[incorrectcatfacestudios]

MID Fusion Headcanons

Using steven universe fusion rules alongside some of my own. 

 There will likely be another post like this one, a part 2 

So the rules

Emotions are shared. 

Memories are not shared, if one component doesn’t want to share a memory with another then the memory will not be shared.

Abilities gained are formed from both of their personalities

All the colored parts of their clothes change to the components combined colorscheme

They form based off of the characters perceptions of eachother, Making each of Ava’s fusions an ACTUAL POWERFUL SORCERESS

Their powers are multiplied by how much love/compassion each component feels for the other. Thus Noi usually supplies the most power to his fusions. Often new powers are gained.

Starting with Leif and Noi

A risk taker, 

DEFINITELY would be an entertainer, would want all attention to be on them at all times. A show off through and through

He would have very fluffy pastel pink hair. 

ALWAYS SMILING unless Leif is experiencing fear. Sometimes when one is feeling a negative emotion the other is feeling a positive one, this shows in their facial expressions. So sometimes the smile feels strained, fake, or evil.  IF ITS SUPER SERIOUS he will frown

gets SUPER JEALOUS REAL QUICK,and if they are not front and center or if someone else steals the spotlight from them expect Angry crying, and violence! :D 

 “HEY AVA! DID YOU SEE THAT?!? WASN’T I COOL!!! PLEASE TELL ME I WAS COOL! I mean I ALREADY KNOW I WAS COOL BUT-” 

Requires constant validation to feed his EGO. 

Flirtier than his components. 

BOUNDLESS ENERGY LIKE! WAAAAYY TO MUCH ENERGY 

Would dance around the battlefield with their newfound abilities like a performer. 

AMAZING AT SWEET-TALKING, and charming others 

Far more likely to use healing magic than Leif ever was. 

He has a tendency to angry cry. 

Would be much stronger at the beginning of the series than he would if they fused in episode 13

His weapons are duel cutlasses 

Noi enjoys the confidence boost he gains in the fusion while Leif enjoys the amount of JOY he feels doing things that would normally bore him. He likes seeing things from Noi’s POV.

Can disappear in a cloud of puffy sparkly smoke, 

 Very flexible, gains dancing skills

Can generate electricity within his body and ZIP ZOOP AROUND 

most of his magic is glittery and sparkly 

Wears lime green or olive clothing. has green eyes. has lime green horns 

So Leif views Noi as a kind hearted lovey dovey fool, while Noi views Leif as a bully and a psychopath, but also a powerful superhero who’s amazing. Hence why when fused they are a kinda mentally unstable performer.  

Leif and Rhys 

He would never form 

BY FAR ONE OF THE WEAKEST OF THE FUSIONS 

When first formed he has an impossible time deciding who he is or even staying together. he doesn’t have an identity or a voice. 

He Gains one much later as the 2 begin to understand each other more. 

Has a scientist surrounded by nature vibe to him. Like instead of metal machines he has ones made completely out of plants. Though he’d only gain this if Rhys and Leif were feeling particularly good about eachother that day. Or if they had a strong positive feeling keeping them together. Otherwise he’d be unable to create or even keep any of it. 

So yeah he can make a rocket out of wood, vines, & various other flora and fauna. 

He has a variety of high level technology yet all of it is made of wood, plants, or bone. 

If exposed to alot of media, and pop culture by the time he forms he would be a MAD SCIENTIST/ MAD DOCTOR character. 

Lots of maniacal laughter

If Rhys would permit it he can be quite cruel and preform some....interesting experiments on his enemies

Would be very interested in the world around and would LOVE TO DISSECT THINGS

his glasses turn into goggles

He’d probably have oversized scientist gloves

is likely to scream EURIKA!!!  

very forgetful. 

Wants to learn as much as he can no matter the situation 

when fused Leif experiences the curiosity Rhys feels and Rhys feels Leif’s LUST FOR BLOOD. 

 Would often find interest in human artifacts and objects finding joy in dissecting them and finding out how they work 

 has the ability to create unholy amalgamations from destroyed objects or  carcasses. 

He’d also gain the ability to control the growth of plants around him & manipulate them using the water inside. 

 Lightbrown/Ginger hair 

Wears alot of cyan 

Their weapon would be a whip of some kind. or a spear 

Studies alot on doctor stuff. wants to get a phd 

Has cyan horns like Pierce, though they bend in a way that combines both horns. and are much larger than either components

 Asch and Rhys

WOULD HAVE A FLUFFY POMPADOR 

Looks like a fucking greaser but their not at all

Always frowning 

VERY STRONG despite not seeming like it

Has Dark blue eyes, and periwinkle horns,  that curve backwards than forwards 

VERY POLITE & regal. 

Doesn’t really show much emotion, good at decision making, and a pretty rounded leader. though...their missing something.  

Knows when to take action and when to stand down. 

Can create smokescreens. manipulate water, fire & Ice

pretty stronk 

Asch’s leadership skills and Rhys’s good decision making mix together to create a perfect and rational decision maker.  

Has a lighter skin tone than Rhys but a much darker one than Asch.  

Probably gains a British accent for the poshness.

Will occasionally raise a hand to threaten you but then close it clenching his fist and continuing to talk

ASCH’S CAPE AND RHYS’S TRENCHCOAT COMBINE TO BECOME A BIG FLOWY CAPE COAT WITH A FLUFFY FUCKING HOOD BECAUSE THAT’S CUTE AF, their torso shirt is grey while they have Asch’s lil sash around their waist, ((it’d be purple)) and Rhys’s pants ((except a tad bit darker)) Rhys’s arm bands would cover Ashe’s bandages.   

Wears a lot of PURPLE, like magenta purple. 

checks himself out behind closed doors 

Adores being together. They just feel right 

Everyone goes to them for advice

Ava & Pierce 

has a blue scrunchy 

LONG FLOWING HAIR 

NEVER TALKS EVER, keeps to themselves even more than both of their components. 

Would HAVE ENORMOUS HAIR like......WAYYY TOO BIG! and scruffy. and they’d always be leaning on a big old cloud that they’d float on. 

Cats. CATS CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Has 2 floating arms hovering around them for petting cats. LIKES FLUFFY   

A very caring individual despite their cold standoffish nature

Constantly tired 

Seems like they don’t care about anything despite the fact that they do...far more so than anyone else even 

Has strong maternal instincts. VERY good with kids. & Loves children far more than either their components.

Will only wake up to pet cats or play with kids. 

The child loving part comes from Pierce. Ava notices that Pierce feels this way and encourages it. 

Only goes by They/ Them pronouns. Nonbinary 

Drinks like 50 cups of coffee a day trying not to pass out. 

Needs coffee 24/7 to stay awake cause otherwise they’d just get too comfortable with eachother and dose right off to sleep

Almost always cuddling something soft, weather it be a cloud they conjured up, Johnny, a plushy, Noi, whatever if its a soft and cuddly thing you can bet your ass that its in their arms.

Wears a mix of Ava’s pajama’s and Pierces Human Disguise. in Blue. That or a cat onesie    

Their not that bright but not that dumb either 

Ava enjoys this fusion because she gets to feel tall. 

They care for themselves. and take care to make sure they don’t get hurt. 

A very deep thinker, that likes to take their time in situations. VERY CREATIVE. 

stoic af

Their also very blunt and if annoyed will tell you “Your annoying. Go away” in a very sleepy slow manner. 

Tired af 24/7 doesn’t want to deal with anyones bullshit. EVER 

VERY POWERFUL 

When they sleep ((on a certain bed)) a giant forcefeild forms around them and a cloud gaurdian of sorts forms around it fighting for them as they dose off. 

Their weapon is a bed.   

The components feel this since of peace when together. While they do close off more they also just...enjoy eachothers company in silence. Expect long sessions of meditation from them . or just casual reading. 

They feel....very at peace and relaxed when together and hate being interrupted 

has purple eye’s. & Deep blue horns   

Pierce & Rhys

If exposed to enough pop culture by the time they fuse I feel like they would have a cop aesthetic. 

“You haven’t been causing any trouble now have you?”

Is always watching. Has new abilities to help him watch & keep the peace. 

Alot quieter than Rhys, but also like....more talkative then Pierce 

VERY STERN. and WILL stare you down 

An intelligent man, of course even smarter than Rhys. 

CAN MAKE HAILSTORMS 

can produce snow out of nothing. 

Wears Sky blue. 

Will often study others with compassion.

VERY MUCH LIKE A DAD 

May or may not make dad jokes 

HAS VERY STRONG OPINIONS OF ASCH ((They really like him)) 

He has light mocha skin, Fluffy curly brown hair done in a ponytail,  Dark Turquoise eyes , Dark Turquoise horns that curve backwards than away from eachother,  and a fake mustache. No one knows where the mustache came from but its detachable! 

DON’T SNATCH THE STACHE!!! They will lay down the law on you

The way they speak when they first fuse and when they later fuse are Pretty different

For the Original Incarnation“ You wouldn’t be planning on violating the RULES that our gracious prince has set for us RIGHT 𝙇𝙀𝙄𝙁”

  And for the 2nd incarnation they’d talk more like a T.V. show cop in certain situations. Though they’d still somehow manage to maintain this level of elegance despite it. (Mostly shown through his movements and tone))  

“ Roger that! Don’t worry Mrs. P I’ll take this troublemaker off your hands.” *Looks towards Leif “ HOW DARE YOU RAISE YOUR WEAPON TO A DEFENSELESS LADY !?! I wrecken your in for a day in the SLAMMER” 

The slammer is just an ice prison Rhys makes while in this fusion.   

Instead of a Cop at first the fusion would be a of a VERY POMPOUS knight. Like chivalry incarnate. Proper, Polite, Dashing, Kind, & Loyal these  Traits would carry onto its cop incarnate 

Their weapon is originally a sword with a magical crystal in the center but as they learn more about human culture it would change to a gun  

doubles down on watching literally everyone and IS ALL UP IN YOUR BUSINESS. 

This fusion basically says whatever it wants cause no one really knows whats going on in Pierces head and Rhys can just blame it on him without him actively caring about it, because he doesn’t. 

Another ability other than creating snow and hail would be making floating ice crystals  that can be used as a  “camera” of sorts. He can use them to keep a watch on the others 

Ava & Noi

One of the strongest of the fusions ((mostly due to Noi))

Nonbinary goes by She / her, they / them

because Noi views Ava as this powerful sorceress they BECOME a powerful magic user, and Ava Views noi as this mystical demon dude from dimension so as a result their fusion is this magical girl/boy/NB 

Wears red and has red eyes, with orange horns. 

Magical girl / Nonbinary aesthetic. 

Noi’s earnsty affects Ava in a way that causes her to be more honest. thus making the fusion very earnest in affection. 

They have a strong since of justice and a want to protect. out of love

Noi once again his honesty affects Ava in a way that makes her more transparent./loving 

Enjoys life to the fullest and having fun, as long as its not something stupid.

Quite literally loves themselfs....onesidedly its complicated. But they do enjoy themselves and rarely ever put themselves down. 

Their weapon is Noi’s daggers mixed with Ava’s phone or a toy she has laying around 

Can shoots out sparkles, rainbows, & various other magical girl esque attacks and has to call out their attacks to use them. 

All of their magic is magic Noi has never seen or heard of before. but they are ones Ava’s seen in anime or T.V shows.  Magical girl shows. 

They’d try to surround themselves with friends and people who like them and kind of be an attention whore. 

Probably the most outwardly friendly of the fusions 

Would love getting headpats 

Would also definitely wear many different aesthetic cat ears and post them all over insta. 

Tries to act cutsie wootsie for attention. sometimes feigns innocence to gain popularity

Noi & Asch

A COMPLETE BRAT, brings out all the negative traits from eachother.

EXTREMELY EMOTIONAL AND BAD AT HIDING IT 

Tries to act cool and together but really just a mess. 

They’d look like a really big imposing scary looking yet upset and almost crying clown? 

Self loathing x 10 

“I-I’m NOT CRYING YOU’RE CRYING!!  MYEEEEEEEEEH” 

Extremely passionate and LOVES hugging everything when happy and angrily screaming at everyone when mad. they are a literal ticking time bomb of emotions.  Though just because he loves it doesn’t mean he WILL hug he just likes doing it even if he doesn’t like to admit it . and will if emotional/impulsive enough at that moment in time, after which he will play it off and try to make up an excuse.  

Clumsy AF. 

Tends to get super jealous and wants to be a part of EVERYTHING 

Acts like a really proud child. 

Throws temper tantrums when they don’t get their way 

due to Noi’s more open attitude towards feelings and Asch’s intense emotions that he often keeps bottled up. They feel the full FORCE of both, All whilst trying to act like nothings wrong. 

He kind of hates himself but at the same time kinda doesn’t ? its complicated. 

EXTREMELY LOW SELF ESTEEM 

Wears orange, has light brown spiky hair, and light yellowy orange hair. His eyes are brown

Their powers also go off like an explosion. Usually his attacks are far weaker than either Noi or Asches. and they have lower stamina as well. Their powers build up and up inside of them until it bursts out. When they burst they do massive damage to pretty much everyone around them. Friend or foe. Its like a combustion of magic. Firey sparks and explosions in all directions. 

Their powers are linked to their emotions though the larger their emotional outbreak, and the more they let out the stronger the attack. 

Their weapon is a bunch of explosive bowling pins. that they juggle around.

Leif & Asch

Extremely likely to stab someone

Wears ALOT of gold. his hair turns a dusty grey color and his eyes are a dark teal. His horns become a golden yellow, The only pops of color on him besides gold and black are red & Green but only in gemstones. 

Values himself above all else 

ALWAYS SCREAMING 

Expect 10 times the villainous monologues 

“YOU WILL BOW BENEATH ME “ 

Loves showing their power through extremely violent means. 

Asch’s wrath and Leif’s crazy mix in a way that is just incredibly hostile to literally everyone. 

PRONE TO VIOLENT OUTBURSTS 

Hates being bothered 

“LEAVE ME ALONE! “ “ KNEEL PEASENT” “ HAHAHAHAAHAHAA YOU REALLY THINK THAT YOU STAND A CHANCE AGAINST ME?!?! HAHAHAHAHA! Stand down human. It’ll be easier that way. “ 

has Asch’s condescending attitude. 

Loves nothing more than bullying others and just making people feel bad. 

Also loves taking selfies. Like...too much. Has a tendancy to stare in the mirror for elongated periods of time admiring his muscles. 

Hates being ignored. Like many of the other fusions. this one gets the MOST pissy about it though 

Feels like everything in the world belongs to him and that he deserves it, fuck anyone who disagree’s I’ll just blow their heads off with my fire magic. 

Complimenting him and feeding his ego is the only way to stop his violence. Depending on how you do it that is. Like complimenting his strength could make things worse

has NO PATIENCE WHATSOEVER 

LAVA. They can create LAVA together. They melt them bitches down to Asch. 

Ava and Asch 

RAMPID CURSER

Ava’s salt mixed with Asches wrath. THEY ARE VERY ANGRY AND PISSY 24/7 

Kinda thotty. but also not? its complicated. Maybe forward would be the best way to put it

Lies constantly. Its never ending. Like they lie to everyone their friends, their enemies, their family, themselves. 

Will eat food off the floor. 

They are extremely rude and foul mouthed. They never seem to get along well with anyone and are prone to making death threats when annoyed. They never follow through with them of course but. 

One of the few ava fusions to fuse both of their regular attires together. a Reddish pink shoulderless jacket with a cape at the back. They have a FLUFFY light pink hood, and their pants are poofy towards the end with black and pink stripes. They also have asch’s arm sleeve thingy.

grows impatient REAL quick and is prone to use deadly force...well pseudo deadly force when angered

 Like stabbing

Literally pissed, annoyed, or tired 24/7 

Loves being in control of everything 

 In battle they constantly taunt their opponents. Using a disturbing variety of swearwords & unique Self-esteem breaking insults. 

Wears ALOT of pink. Has red eyes however. but their outfit is just a bunch of pinks and blacks.  

Nonbinary goes by he/him they/them 

The other 7 will be in part 2 I need time have to think of them. I’ll add more later! 

[helshades]

Sweetie :) the British supreme court ruled in favor of Sweden's expatriation request in May 2012. Julian was then granted "asylum" at the embassy in August 2012. Cut the bullshit already.

Harshie :( Quoting myself:

‘Eventually, he appealed to the recently-created Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: his request was rejected two years later, in May 2012.[…] On 19 June 2012, the Ecuadorian foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, announced that Assange had applied for political asylum, that his government was considering the request, and that Assange was at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Just before Assange was granted asylum, the UK government wrote to Patiño stating that the police were entitled to enter the embassy and arrest Assange under UK law.’

Kudos on your contradiction skills, duckie. You… accidentally rock at enabling people? I guess??

Rejection of the appeal: BBC News, 30 May 2012, ‘Julian Assange loses extradiction appeal at Supreme Court’

Concerning the asylum (sans quotation marks):

Quoting The Telegraph, 24 June 2012, ‘WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to remain in Ecuadorian Embassy’:

‘In a statement outside the Embassy where Assange has spent the last week, Susan Benn from the Julian Assange Defence Fund said he had been advised that asylum law took precedence over extradition law and would not accept the invitation to attend a police station.

She said: “Mr Assange has been advised that he should decline to comply with the police request. He’s in good spirits. He’s very grateful for the support shown to him by the people of Ecuador and so many others from around the world.”

She added he would stay at the Embassy while his application for asylum is processed and said it was only a matter of time before the US launched an extradition bid.

“This should not be considered any sign of disrespect. Under both international and domestic UK law asylum assessments take priority over extradition claims,” she said.

[…] Assange is under diplomatic protection in the embassy and cannot be arrested by police unless he steps outside the building in Knightsbridge.’

Quoting The Guardian a bit earlier:

‘Julian Assange remains inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London after seeking asylum in the country on Tuesday.’ [Tue. 19 June 2012]

‘The Foreign Office has confirmed the embassy is diplomatic territory, and that while Assange remains there he is “beyond the reach of police”. But the Metropolitan Police says he will be subject to immediate arrest if he attempts to leave the building because he has breached his bail conditions.’

Also in The Guardian:

‘Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents the WikiLeaks founder in the US, said Assange and his legal team considered it highly likely that he would face an onward extradition to the US if he were sent to Sweden.

“The concrete reality [is] that he was facing a political prosecution in the US, he was facing the death penalty or certainly life in jail. Faced with that, he had extremely limited choices.”

Barring a last-ditch appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, Assange could have expected to be extradited imminently, after the supreme court rejected the last of his attempts to resist removal to Sweden over accusations of sex assaults made by two women in August 2010.

The Assange team believes the US is likely to seek to prosecute him on espionage charges, which carries a potential death penalty, and that his chances of resisting any such extradition warrant would be more difficult in Sweden, where he would not receive bail during investigations into the alleged sex crimes and where his lawyers believe political and public opposition to a US extradition claim would be weaker.’

The US empanelled a secret grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks and Assange in May 2011, but has not issued any requests for his extradition to the UK or Sweden. However, Ratner said both he and Assange believed it was “more likely than not” that a sealed indictment had been drawn up.

Assange’s legal adviser Jennifer Robinson said in February that she and Assange had discussed the possibility of his seeking political asylum. Ratner said he had had no warning of the plan, however.’

And still in The Guardian, but in an opinion column:

If one asks current or former WikiLeaks associates what their greatest fear is, almost none cites prosecution by their own country. Most trust their own nation’s justice system to recognize that they have committed no crime. The primary fear is being turned over to the US. That is the crucial context for understanding Julian Assange’s 16-month fight to avoid extradition to Sweden, a fight that led him to seek asylum, Tuesday, in the London Embassy of Ecuador.

The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial. There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama’s party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange’s lifelong imprisonment, called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination.

For several reasons, Assange has long feared that the US would be able to coerce Sweden into handing him over far more easily than if he were in Britain. For one, smaller countries such as Sweden are generally more susceptible to American pressure and bullying.

For another, that country has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured (both individuals, asylum-seekers in Sweden, were ultimately found to be innocent of any connection to terrorism and received a monetary settlement from the Swedish government).

Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings and oppressive pre-trial conditions, enabling any Swedish-US transactions concerning Assange to be conducted beyond public scrutiny. Ironically, even the US State Department condemned Sweden’s “restrictive conditions for prisoners held in pretrial custody”, including severe restrictions on their communications with the outside world.

Assange’s fear of ending up in the clutches of the US is plainly rational and well-grounded. One need only look at the treatment over the last decade of foreign nationals accused of harming American national security to know that’s true; such individuals are still routinely imprisoned for lengthy periods without any charges or due process. Or consider the treatment of Bradley Manning, accused of leaking to WikiLeaks: a formal UN investigation found that his pre-trial conditions of severe solitary confinement were “cruel, inhuman and degrading”, and he now faces capital charges of aiding al-Qaida. The Obama administration’s unprecedented obsession with persecuting whistleblowers and preventing transparency – what even generally supportive, liberal magazines call “Obama’s war on whistleblowers” – makes those concerns all the more valid.

No responsible person should have formed a judgment one way or the other as to whether Assange is guilty of anything in Sweden. He has not even been charged, let alone tried or convicted, of sexual assault, and he is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The accusations made against him are serious ones, and deserve to be taken seriously and accorded a fair and legal resolution.

But the WikiLeaks founder, like everyone else, is fully entitled to invoke all of his legal rights, and it’s profoundly reckless and irresponsible to suggest, as some have, that he has done anything wrong by doing so. Seeking asylum on the grounds of claimed human rights violations is a longstanding and well-recognized right in international law. It is unseemly, at best, to insist that he forego his rights in order to herd him as quickly as possible to Sweden.  

Assange is not a fugitive and has not fled. Everyone knows where he is. If Ecuador rejects his asylum request, he will be right back in the hands of British authorities, who will presumably extradite him to Sweden without delay. At every step of the process, he has adhered to, rather than violated, the rule of law. His asylum request of yesterday is no exception.

Julian Assange has sparked intense personal animosity, especially in media circles – a revealing irony, given that he has helped to bring about more transparency and generated more newsworthy scoops than all media outlets combined over the last several years. That animosity often leads media commentators to toss aside their professed beliefs and principles out of an eagerness to see him shamed or punished.

But ego clashes and media personality conflicts are pitifully trivial when weighed against what is at stake in this case: both for Assange personally and for the greater cause of transparency. If he’s guilty of any crimes in Sweden, he should be held to account. But until then, he has every right to invoke the legal protections available to everyone else. Even more so, as a foreign national accused of harming US national security, he has every reason to want to avoid ending up in the travesty known as the American judicial system.

     — Glenn Greenwald, 20 June 2012.

[beinglibertarian]

Brett Kavanaugh and the Bill of Rights: Some Concerns

President Donald Trump’s nomination of D.C. Circuit Appellate judge, Brett Kavanaugh, to the Supreme Court, has elicited (at least among civil libertarians) a now-familiar and predictable conversation on the issue of civil liberties and national security.

In a 2015 concurring opinion in Obama v. Klayman, which challenged the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s collection of Americans’ phone metadata records, Kavanaugh wrote, “In my view, the critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.”

Kavanaugh’s opinion is certainly indicative of a concerning lack of judicial restraint.

It is also, in a broader sense, demonstrative of the misguided premise underlying the public debate on liberty versus security; namely the notion that our constitutional liberties must be sacrificed and that the only question is, to what extent.

It is a widespread belief among individuals of all political stripes that it is acceptable to compromise the Bill of Rights since the founding fathers could not have anticipated modern-day threats to our national security. Such an argument, however, is disingenuous, as history shows that the founders were in fact quite conscious of national security concerns when they drafted the Constitution.

For instance, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 – the war powers clause – originally stated that “Congress shall have the power to make war.” This verbiage was ultimately changed to “Congress shall have the power to declare war,” a subtle distinction that granted the President the authority to use military force to “repel against sudden attacks” absent congressional authorization.

The Bill of Rights, however, purposefully includes no exemptions for national security.

Politicians, pundits, and the American public are asking the wrong question when they ask, “How do we strike the proper balance between individual liberty and national security?”

This question was unequivocally decided on December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted by the states and incorporated into the Constitution.

The founding fathers decided that, yes, the government can search a suspected terrorist’s home, but they must first present evidence of wrongdoing to a judge.

Yes, the government can seize a drug dealer’s ill-obtained property, but that drug dealer must first be given due process.

Sure, the government can detain an accused criminal, but the accused must be granted a trial with minimal delay.

Rather than misguidedly asking the settled question of how we should balance liberty with security, we ought to be asking, “Do our current laws adhere to the balance between liberty and security stipulated in the Bill of Rights?” Far too often, the answer to this question is an emphatic “no.”

Section 702 of FISA and section 215 of the paradoxically titled USA PATRIOT Act, which allow the government to collect Americans’ communications and records without judicial approval, fail to meet the Fourth Amendment’s standard for violating a person’s privacy.

Civil forfeiture, which permits law enforcement to confiscate the assets of individuals not convicted of a crime, blatantly disregards the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirement.

Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which authorize indefinite detention of American citizens, violate both the right to due process and the Sixth Amendment’s requirement of a speedy trial.

It is not difficult to see the danger in carving out a national security exemption to the Bill of Rights.

In Federalist 51, James Madison wrote, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

However, men and women – including those serving in law enforcement and the intelligence community – are not angels. They, like all human beings, have biases and it is not inconceivable that some of them have biases that rise to the level of bigotry.

If an American is wrongly targeted by a biased individual in a position of official power, the Bill of Rights is his or her last bulwark of protection, of individual liberty.

Imagine a high-level intelligence official targeting Americans for surveillance based on their political views, disguised as national security concerns.

In such a situation, the Fourth Amendment enables a judge to say, “Hold up! There’s no evidence that these people did anything wrong!” and deny the government’s requests to wiretap their phones and collect their e-mails.

Likewise, imagine a bigoted president accusing Americans of terrorism based on their race or religion and ordering their detention, again under the auspices of national security. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments ensure that they could not be detained without charges or, if charged, could not remain detained indefinitely without a trial.

In both of these hypothetical, yet wholly conceivable, scenarios, the Bill of Rights safeguards the liberty of the unfairly targeted and the wrongly accused.

Our constitutional rights exist not for the protection of the guilty, but for the protection of the innocent.

In the 1960 British play, A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More, the protagonist, asserts, “Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”

If those who claim that we must compromise the Bill of Rights for our own safety were to get their way, they would likely be singing a very different tune if they one day found themselves in the position of those whose rights they would so blithely take away.

* Gabrielle Weatherbee graduated from Bentley University in 2018 with a bachelor’s degree and is currently pursuing a master’s degree in accounting. When she’s not studying for the CPA exam, Gabrielle enjoys watching documentaries, trying new restaurants, and spending time outdoors.

The post Brett Kavanaugh and the Bill of Rights: Some Concerns appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2NZO9Ec via IFTTT

[shitsuji-hcs]

I liked the analysis you wrote on Grell's character. Can you do something on Sieglinde? Maybe about her thirst for knowledge or... about her skeevy speech?

Sen: Sieglinde is one of the many female characters that has fallen victim to bad character traits. As you pointed out, her speech is a little less than desirable and I do some other people who have pointed it out - who I won’t mention in fear of them being attacked for such an opinion. 

She is obviously one of the most loved minor characters because for her hunger for knowledge and excitable nature as a result. However, as a result of this ‘quirk’, she is written to be curious in matters of sex and the body. Upon a first read, this is pretty funny, I can’t deny that the execution and all was humorous. But then again, Toboso is using the vulnerability of a child as well as something that in the context of the universe has caused trauma for the main character as humour.

TW: R-pe, CSA and p—philia.

Although this series does deal with dark topics, as we know from Chapters 130 onwards, Toboso has a definite problem if she deems a child talking about lust and sex as comical while she writes about the explicit rape of her main character as serious. Black Butler has a major tonal problem in how the darkest topics are treated. As we know from the recent chapters, Ciel is a rape victim. Toboso has known and planned for such a thing to have happened to her character from the beginning.

In Chapter 89, we first see Sieglinde’s curiosity. This leads her to make unwanted approaches onto Ciel, violating him despite his pleas for her to stop. Despite a language barrier, she should’ve been able to understand his distress. Sieglinde may be isolated, but it’s still shown that she has at least understanding of basic human emotion. Even without the context of knowing how Ciel was affected by ‘that month’ post Chapter 130, anyone should be able to understand that unwanted sexual advances shouldn’t be seen as comedic.

The reason why this is allowed to fly past however is the fact that Sieglinde’s character is excused by childish innocence. Having no knowledge of societal norms outside of Wolfsschult excuses her - she doesn’t know at all how to act around men. She doesn’t know any better, so it’s pretty hard to blame her. Yet, what personally does annoy/discomfort me is the fact that Toboso’s authorial intent was to create humour. Every panel is supposed to have some meaning, whether grand or minute, and to have Ciel grabbed in such a way doesn’t reveal such a plot point nor does much get exposed about the character (asides from the fact that Sieglinde knows no social norms, but this was introduced before hand) - there is really no avoiding the fact that Toboso intended for this to be a humorous scene.

Once again, Sieglinde honestly can’t be blamed much. As said before, she has no knowledge of how to interact with outsiders and has never seen a man besides Wolfram. All she learns is “invariably written in books”, those which are governmentally regulated for her, so she wouldn’t have any other knowledge about men. She’s a victim of abuse herself, being cut off from society and taught not to trust anyone but those around her. This is the world she’s always known, but does that mean she has to act upon her curiosity in such a way?

Sadly, Sieglinde then acts on the intention of understanding what sex is rather than by the satisfaction of her own lust (which, if that was the case, would bring Toboso’s writing to something more questionable than this scene already is. As she says, it is “believe[d]” that Ciel and sebastian would “have business with [her]”, that she acted on what she thought that her guests would legitimately want of her. This is of course terribly wrong for a child to know and be lead to think.

However, this whole interaction could have been written entirely different. Instead, Toboso could have skipped this or Sieglinde could’ve asked about something entirely different - culture, food, art, science? Yet it just ‘had’ to be sexual desire which Sieglinde wanted to know about. Even after telling the tale of the Green Witch, Sieglinde returns back to focusing on “sweet moments in bed”, and even Ciel points out that “she’s just a child” - it definitely isn’t right for her to be talking of such things. It might have been excusable for Toboso to just use this sexual humour once but she returns back to it 7 pages later.

This attitude carries on to the next arc as well. Once Sieglinde arrives in England, she’s already quite fluent in English and can practise, within reason, whatever she wants to her heart’s content - perhaps she was able to enter British society and see how normal people act in their day to day lives. During the Blue Cult arc however,  she still keeps up a “suggestive” tone. This really slows down the urgency of the fact that Ciel might have just been drugged, and shows that she hasn’t learned anything much. Furthermore, a year on from the Green Witch arc, Toboso still hasn’t learned that letting an eleven year old say such lecherous things is wrong. This shows that Toboso literally thought to herself and believed writing a child pervert character that would ‘jokingly/curiously’ harass a character she would later reveal as a rape victim was a comfortable concept.

( @genemenom provided me with this screenshot)

On another point, this scene also emasculates Ciel. One may argue that a child like him shouldn’t be worrying about such but we know for a fact, that Ciel is pushing himself to grow up fast as the man of the household. As a result of his past, he already feels incompetency as a result of his existence. Sieglinde’s comments that attack his masculinity would probable hurt - “so you are a male after all” and an “effeminate cur” (though not understood by him) - all of these words directly attack a child who has been robbed of his masculine identity through rape and has been desperately striving to take it back.

Then again, I would like to reiterate that most of this really isn’t Sieglinde as a character’s fault. Within the universe of Black Butler, she’s been starved of social interaction and lacks basic understanding of how society works. She’s still a genius that can create technology and chemicals that are far ahead of her time. Despite that, it seems like Toboso believed that making a child sexually interested was a legitimate improvement to her character. I can’t say that I hate Sieglinde as a character. She’s lovable in a lot of ways and that can’t be ignored. That being said, she still remains a victim to tragically poor character conceptualisation and for that, I can’t agree upon her being the best version of a character that she could have been.

[escapewithmewzic]

Week 7:Twitter’s susceptibility to trolls and hate

Troll??

Troll in the social media world means a person who creates discord or conflict on the Internet by posting messages that are controversial and provocative in order to start fights or evoke emotional response from people on the Internet or in simple words,to offend them. Yes it is unfortunate that this kind of terrible people exist. #sadfactoflife .However,to make things worse,the Internet has provided these people the platform to spread hate and malice easier, with almost no consequences in the real world.

If you’re an active social media user, chances are that you’ve experienced trolling in one way or another.

Trollers and the rest of the fandom argue that the insults,threats or provocations are merely forms of mischief and humour and emphasizes on the freedom of speech but for many,the personal nature and the ferocity of the abuse verges on hate speech.Given the right to free speech does not mean you should do it.

Trolling in its extreme form can be a criminal offence. Sean Duffy posted offensive videos and messages on tribute pages on young people who died and one of his unfortunate target was Natasha MacBryde, a 15 year old who was killed by a train. One of his insensitive and thoughtless messages he left on the Facebook page was ‘I fell asleep on the track lolz”.The consequences for being an insensitive idiot : he was jailed for 18 weeks.

Unlike the trolls you see in fairy tales, trolls on social media lurks in the open instead of under bridges or in caves, they wait for the best time to come out with every keystroke,striving to provoke and incite hatred.

According to a research done on comments on CNN, there are two major factors that influences people to troll and the first factor is a person’s mood. It was found that people who were in negative moods were much more likely to troll and this is in sync with the mood patterns of humans which ebbs and flows with the day of week and time of day.

The research shows that trolling happens least frequently in the morning and most frequent late at night. It does not stop there but the heights of trolling is at its most frequent on Mondays.

A discussion’s context is the second factor. I’m sure all of you agrees with this or may have seen this “banter” happening on Facebook or Twitter. Posts that begins with a “troll comment” are more likely to be joined by other users compared to posts that does not begin with such comments. Not only that, the more troll comments there are, it attracts more and more troll comments from users. Trollolol.

It was possible to forecast when a person is going to troll approximately 80% of the time by using machine learning algorithms.The two factors put together is a much stronger indicator of trolling compared to pointing out specific individuals as trolls. Basically,trolling occurs more due to the influence of nurture which relates to the person’s environment compared to any inherent trait.

Ordinary people like me and you *winks* can also be influenced to troll as such behaviour can rub on others.It is due to the emotional response to such comments perhaps written by someone who woke up on the wrong side of the bed leading to comments that reacts towards it and end up having heaps and heaps of troll comments! *tragic*

If such behaviour is left unchecked, trolling can end up becoming the norm in the society.Predicting when trolling will happen can be done better by understanding possible factors that leads to such act.

However, it is vital that we know how to differentiate a troll comment and a comment from someone who just need some help in communicating their ideas better.

The findings of a study shows that high percentage of online abuse happens on Twitter and this is probably due to the anonymity of the platform when compared to other social network sites like Facebook which require users to present their real identity.A study done on 134,000 abusive mentions on social media showed that 88% of them happens on Twitter and the remaining small percentage happened on Facebook and other sites(Edwards 2015). 

A British TV host Sue Perkins, quit Twitter after receiving death threats due to other people’s opinion that she might be a good replacement on Top Gear in place of Jeremy Clarkson.This occurrence of famous people leaving Twitter due to death threats happens very often and the stats of it happening on Twitter compared to Facebook is just beyond words!

I’m sure the question that pops up is why does Twitter face this problem and Facebook does not?It is related to “real identity” where other social network sites require you to show who you really are and this does not really work on Twitter especially.Anybody can sign up with a fake name and an anonymous email address.A trend I find on Twitter are accounts created with a famous person’s name and the content are filled with disses and spiteful comments and so called “banters”.

Facebook prevails when it comes to troll removal. Even though all platforms allow a person to report behaviours that are abusive,Facebook’s follow up is the strongest. You have full control over the comments on your Facebook page where a deleted comment will be vanished from everybody’s eyes unless the troll decided to repeat the same thing. Accounts that are created with fake names or accounts created for the sake of harassing purposes are taken down quickly.I’ve experienced an imposter of myself messaging my friends for a verification code and my friends and I reported the account and in a few minutes,the account was immediately removed!

Trolls value anonymity and seldom confirm their emails or phone numbers and they tend to use the default photo on Twitter which was formerly the famous egg icon.The egg icon was dropped as it has become heavily associated with online abuse which is not fair to those genuine users who are new and have not selected their profile photo.Accounts created to harass others are often not personalized as they don’t really have the time to.However, you can exclude these trolls from your feed by simply going to the Privacy section and select Notifications and mute people who uses a default photo and users who hasn’t confirm their phone number or email.With just a few clicks,you can change your feed from being exposed to all the toxicity.Yes they are still roaming free but why would you care if you can’t see them. Ignorance is bliss. *sometimes*

Twitter is making changes to address abuse and malicious automated accounts in the face of criticism it doesn't do enough to curb harassment and manipulation on its service.

Each week,there has been a dramatic rise in the creation of spam or automated accounts on Twitter. Nearly 10 million potential fake or spam accounts were created weekly, identified by Twitter’s machine learning tools.This is an increase of 3.2 million in September.

Twitter announced new rules where users who wants to join Twitter are required to either confirm a phone number or an email address when signing up on Twitter.Twitter hopes to reduce spam accounts’ visibility by removing their accounts from engagement counts and follower figures unless they confirm their identity(Musil 2018).

Jack Dorsey,Twitter’s CEO asked users for recommendations on how to fix the platform after recognizing that Twitter can be extremely toxic and that his team and he had underestimated the consequences it can have in the real-world. He recognized and has witnessed harassments,abuse,armies of trolls, manipulations and divisive echo chambers that are increasing.

Particularly over the past few years, Twitter takes the center stage for various abuse such as death threats, attack mobs, revenge porn and privacy violations.

Some ways to handle trolls :-

1)Handle them with humour

IMO, humour is the best weapon a person can have! By making light of a troll’s tweet, you’re basically acknowledging and defusing the situation simultaneously.

A grocery chain in the UK, Sainsbury’s, responded to a criticism regarding their chicken sandwich in a lighthearted manner and their response is top class.What’s important here is they did not ignore the customer’s tweet.They apologized,recognized the problem and replied in a witty manner.They managed to turn a criticism into an engagement opportunity.

2) Feed them with facts

A way to debunk trolls and their ‘tales’ is with facts and ‘tales’ here can include rumours and posts with false information or inaccuracies. Do you guys remember when Apple released the iPhone 6 and there were posts and rumours about it bending in your pocket?Thus the birth of the hashtag #bendgate with a lot of trolling on the side.

Many trolls lurking in the Internet was very creative about it and inspired to post their version of it.

Apple took a stand and responded to the criticisms by admitting that it could bend but wouldn’t normally happen with normal use.(obviously anything can bend/break with such force that you don’t usually do to a phone LMAO) #BendGate turns out to be a much ado about almost nothing and Apple received only 9 complaints and openly shared the stats. Addressing the issue head-on was Apple’s tactic to stop further controversies(Rampton 2015).

P.S. I personally think the best way is to just ignore the trolls. 

References

Edwards, J 2015, ‘One statistic shows that Twitter has a fundamental problem Facebook solved years ago’, Business Insider, 17 April, viewed 23 October 2018, <http://uk.businessinsider.com/statistics-on-twitter-abuse-rape-death-threats-and-trolls-2015-4/?IR=T>.

Musil, S 2018, ‘Twitter ramps up effort to combat abusive bots,trolls’, CNET, 26 June, viewed 23 October 2018, <https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-ramps-up-effort-to-combat-abusive-bots-trolls/>.

Rampton, J 2015, ’10 tips to dealing with trolls’, Forbes, 9 April, viewed 22 October 2018, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnrampton/2015/04/09/10-tips-to-dealing-with-trolls/#1b4703bf54f4>.

[xtruss]

Are You Ready and Willing to Be Free Again?

“Care what other people think of you and you will always be their prisoner.” — Lao Tzu

— By Stacey Rudin | September 16, 2021

The modern West’s sudden and near universal acceptance of “lockdowns” — a novel concept of government-enforced house arrest — signifies a far-reaching and sinister shift away from bedrock democratic values. When fear was injected into the atmosphere by the media, the West was a sitting duck, ready to accept any lifeline offered by any politician — even the communist dictator — in a stunning reversal of our nation’s founding principles.

“Give me liberty or give me death” was our original rallying cry. Oppressed by British rule, Americans rebelled. They fought for independence, for the right to live their own lives in their own way. This passion for liberty created the most successful republic in history, a nation to be proud of — a beacon of hope and prosperity for people of all nations.

Today’s Americans behave in a diametrically opposed manner, trusting the government with blind allegiance and giving it full and total control over their wellbeing. Even personal health decisions like whether or not to receive a quickly-developed vaccination are entrusted to politicians to mandate. Any neighbor who disagrees is marginalized and rejected: “She’s an antivaxxer; she must be an ignorant Trump supporter.”

You cannot betray the concept of “give me liberty or give me death” any further than by adopting the premise that no one can disagree with you and still be a reasonable person. When you are on board with a plan that includes subverting your neighbors’ autonomy and violating their bodies as you deem necessary to satisfy the people on TV, you’ve rejected the American experiment. You’re a collectivist, and I wonder: have you looked into how well collectivist systems have worked out for regular people lately?

It is shocking how many people appear to want to live in a world where everyone thinks just like they do. The average person quickly distances himself even from political opponents, as if it would be desirable to have just one political party that everyone votes for. Yet in 2021, in affluent coastal communities, republicans have to pretend to be democrats, and they actually do it. When even this commonplace difference of opinion cannot be accepted and dealt with, it’s clear we’ve moved far away from prizing eccentricity as John Stuart Mill did in 1859, back when Liberty was cool:

“[T]he mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time.”

“The mind-bending part of conformist behavior is this: we all know the truth. We know. We just aren’t saying or doing it”

This fear of eccentricity — which I’d argue is tantamount to freedom — was laid bare in March 2020. Even when the “deadly disease” propaganda out of China was thickest, the average person really did not want to lock herself at home and pull her children out of school, let alone force people out of work. Yet it was only the very rare person who made this desire public. Everyone else pretended to agree — they decided to “go along to get along.” They put the “stay home, save lives” sticker on their Facebook profiles. They did drive-by birthday parades (my God.) And now that the failure of lockdowns is irrefutable, they refuse to admit they were wrong, afraid to face the damage they helped to cause.

To summarize, the appearance of universal agreement with lockdown was just that: an appearance. Agreement was depicted because most people do “what’s cool,” and because mass media is everywhere, and because social media astroturf propaganda efforts are very effective. A society that wants to “be cool” is very easy to manipulate. The dissenters will betray themselves to stay cool, so just make something appear cool, and the conformists will jump on board.

To today’s Americans, appearances are everything — we are afraid to be different, lest it make our friends uncomfortable (maybe we will lose one, whatever will we do?!) We have ceased caring about truth and authenticity entirely. We have tacitly agreed as a society that true things should be hidden whenever they conflict with what is “popular”; with what everyone “smart” and “cool” is doing. Anyone acting outside of these boundaries — the “eccentrics” of centuries past, considered by Mill to be geniuses — are today’s untouchables.

In a nation founded by rebels, somehow it has become cool to be a conformist.

Thanks to lockdowns, we know that people want to “stay cool” more than they want they want their kids educated, more than they want to open their businesses, and more than they want to breathe freely. They will even accept open-ended vaccine dosages for an illness that poses less risk to them than driving a car — anything to “stay cool.” Disagreeing with someone is too much for Americans today. Confrontation is so scary that we’d rather let society dictate who we are; that way, everyone else will feel comfortable.

“Care what other people think of you and you will always be their prisoner.” — Lao Tzu

This is how the West sacrificed freedom before lockdowns were ever imposed. We care far too much what other people think of us. We fear freedom. Freedom is truth and authenticity and acting in your own interest, as your own person, even when — especially when — it makes other people uncomfortable. Why would you want a bunch of fake “friends” who only like the image you’re projecting? They will leave you the second your social power is tarnished. If you’ve never burned a bridge in your life, these are the people you’re surrounded by, guaranteed.

Speaking the truth, even when it burns bridges, will dissatisfy just the people you want to be rid of: the people who want you in a box, who resent having to follow onerous rules themselves, and mean to force you to do the same. The only power they have is the power to reject you, and once you don’t care about that, you’re free. You say the truth, accept the results, walk away from the wrong people and end up with the right ones.

Trade truth for popularity, by contrast, and you kill yourself in a sense. All that’s left of “you” is what society finds acceptable, which isn’t “you” at all. It’s completely external to you and has nothing to do with you. By conforming, you betray yourself by accepting the premise that there is something wrong with the real you. Maybe you’re so bent on being perfect (as defined by others) that you don’t even know what “you” is. That would make you the perfect cog in a machine, but as for your personal well-being, there is nothing worse. You will suffer.

“We defraud ourselves out of what is actually useful to us in order to make appearances conform to common opinion. We care less about the real truth of our inner selves than about how we are known to the public.” — Montaigne

The mind-bending part of conformist behavior is this: we all know the truth. We know. We just aren’t saying or doing it. There are dozens, hundreds of people who email me thanking me for opposing lockdowns and for standing up for medical choice and privacy. So why aren’t they doing this themselves, if they admire it so much, and know it needs to be done? If everyone did it, there could be no repercussions for any of us. Yet it isn’t happening because we are scared of telling the truth, which means we fear freedom. Far too many of us fear freedom.

We fear freedom and authentic humanity so much that we pretend people are robots. One glimpse of human frailty and a person can be blacklisted without a trial. Humanity is barbaric at present, demanding a certain perfect image and absolute cooperation with majority rule or social death. It isn’t hard to understand why people eventually crack in such a system, or develop severe anxiety disorders. Consider one of my favorite passages of literature from modern philosopher Karl Ove Knausgaard, discussing how he was banished by his family for simply telling the truth in his epic autobiographical novel:

“The social dimension is what keeps us in our places, which makes it possible for us to live together; the individual dimension is what ensures that we don’t merge into each other. The social dimension is based on taking one another into consideration. We also do this by hiding our feelings, not saying what we think, if what we feel or think affects others. The social dimension is also based on showing some things and hiding others. What should be shown and what should be hidden are not subject to disagreement . . . the regulatory mechanism is shame. One of the questions this book raised for me when I was writing it was what was there to gain by contravening social norms, by describing what no one wants to be described, in other words, the secret and the hidden. Let me put it another way: what value is there in not taking others into account? The social dimension is the world as it should be. Everything that is not as it should be is hidden. My father drank himself to death, that is not how it should be, that has to be hidden. My heart yearned for another woman, that is not how it should be, it must be hidden. But he was my father and it was my heart.”

“He was my father and it was my heart.” What is there to gain by calling Knausgaard a freak and rejecting him, when we know these things happen all the time — alcoholism and infidelity? Shouldn’t we revere him for his brave example, for his confidence? I find his display of human vulnerability incredibly attractive, perhaps because I see so little of it in my daily life. I’m tired of the display of perfect people with perfect lives and perfectly-scheduled, perfect kids on the path to Harvard. I want the mess, and I want to show my mess and still be accepted and loved.

Knausgaard, I guess, is the rare modern eccentric. He puts it all out there. Here he is again, discussing the purpose of publishing a novel so true that he lost family members over it:

“I was there, turning 40. I had a beautiful wife, three beautiful kids, I loved them all. But still I wasn’t truly happy. It’s not necessarily the curse of the writer, this. But maybe it’s the curse of the writer to be aware of it, to ask: why is all this, all I’ve got, not enough? That’s really what I’m searching for, in this whole thing, an answer to that question.”

Maybe that’s the heart of it all — even the heart of the current crisis. We are all so empty despite “having it all,” because “it all” has been defined by something other than us. Hollywood, the media, popular politicians — they are telling us what to be, and we have listened, and we are miserable. We are lying, pretending, putting on a show; hiding our pain with drugs, drink, porn, overspending. Things that they sell us.

The end result of this entire exercise in anti-self-development is lockdowns and forced perpetual vaccinations, a segregated society with everyone suspicious of everyone else, and technological apartheid on the horizon. Slavery. If we had all defined ourselves, instead of turning into a mass with one hive mind, afraid of any differences — of freedom — would we be here? I don’t think so. We’d be happy, healthy, and free.

“To be satiated with the ‘necessities’ of external success is no doubt an inestimable source of happiness, yet the inner man continues to raise his claim, and this can be satisfied by no outward possessions. And the less this voice is heard in the chase after the brilliant things of this world, the more the inner man becomes a source of inexplicable misfortune and uncomprehended unhappiness.” — Carl Jung

We’ve neglected individuality in pursuit of perfect conformity, and as a result we’ve become a miserable society filled with miserable people who will never feel safe enough. There is no boundary they will not cross in pursuit of perfect compliance with the rules, doing anything and everything that’s needed to “be cool” today, as defined by The Today Show. “Come to our all-vaccinated wedding!” “I won’t play tennis with ‘the unvaccinated,’ regardless of the fact that I took my own vaccine and stand 40 feet away.”

This is what we’ve become.

We simply must revisit truth and authenticity sometime very soon. We urgently need to find what’s real in all of this fake, and that can’t be done without individual human voices. If you care about liberty, you must do this one scary thing: embrace it. Be free. “But to be free, you have to be inconsiderate.” Yes. Inconsiderate to others, but considerate to yourself. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

— Stacey Rudin is an attorney and writer in New Jersey, USA

[khalilhumam]

Who are the 6 Hong Kong activists wanted by the police under Beijing's national security law?

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/who-are-the-6-hong-kong-activists-wanted-by-the-police-under-beijings-national-security-law/

Who are the 6 Hong Kong activists wanted by the police under Beijing's national security law?

The six activists live abroad, and one of them is a citizen of the United States

Beijing's six wanted Hong Kong fugitives. Image from the Stand News. Used with permission.

Six pro-democracy activists have been branded fugitives of justice by the Hong Kong Police Force, according to a report by China Central Television (CCTV) aired on July 31. Local authorities refused media request to comment on the case. Among the activists are Nathan Law, Ray Wong, Honcques Laus, Simon Cheng, Wayne Chan — all Hong Kong citizens living overseas. The sixth activist, Samuel Chu, is a United States citizen and has been living in that country for the past 25 years. CCTV reported that the six men are wanted for “incitement to secession and collusion with foreign forces,” which would be violations of the newly-enacted national security law. The arrest order of US citizen Samuel Chu seems to confirm fears that China aims to apply the draconian law to anyone on Earth, including non-Hong Kong citizens residing overseas. Since the enactment of the new law, the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand, and some European countries including France and Germany have suspended their extradition treaties with Hong Kong. Why are the six men wanted by Beijing? Below is a brief summary of the activists’ background and their reactions to the “fugitive” status.

Samuel Chu

The 42-year-old pastor was born in Hong Kong, but since 1995 has been a citizen of the United States, where he also lives. He has been involved in anti-poverty activism in his country of residence, for example, advocating for schools to provide free meals to students and campaigning against “lunch shaming.” He is a son of Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, who was a prominent figure in Hong Kong's 2014 Umbrella Protests. In September 2019, Samuel Chu founded the Hong Kong Democracy Council, a Washington DC-based nonpartisan human rights group that promotes democracy and human rights in Hong Kong. On Twitter, Chu mocked the accusations levied against him:

Today, I woke up to media reports that I am a wanted fugitive. My alleged crimes? “Inciting secession” & “colluding with foreign powers” under HK's National Security Law. Except I am an American citizen & have been for 25 years. pic.twitter.com/rppP14kLnU — Samuel Chu 朱牧民 (@samuelmchu) July 31, 2020

Nathan Law

Born in mainland China, the 27-year-old activist left Hong Kong to the United Kingdom shortly before July 1, 2020, when the national security law was enacted. Besides being one of the student leaders of the 2014 Umbrella Protests, Law is also the founding chairperson of Demosisto, a now-disbanded political party led by student activists, including Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow. The party advocated for a referendum to determine Hong Kong's sovereignty post-2047, when the “one country, two systems” principle of the 1997 Sino-British declaration is due to expire. In 2016, at the age of 23, Law was elected as the youngest-ever member of the Legislative Council, but he was disqualified from holding office after making a protest statement during his oath-taking ceremony. He now lives in London and has continued to lobby international bodies to safeguard civil liberties and human rights in Hong Kong. After seeing the CCTV news, he tweeted that all of his decisions have been made out of the love for Hong Kong, and that he is willing to pay “the price of displacement”. He added that, in order to protect his family from political harassment, he would sever relationships with them:

8. At the same time, I hereby reiterate: My advocacy work overseas is conducted in my own personal capacity, without any collaboration with others. Since leaving Hong Kong, I have also stopped contacting members of my family. From now on I’ll sever my relationship with them. — Nathan Law 羅冠聰

(@nathanlawkc) July 31, 2020

Ray Wong

Wong founded the localist political group Hong Kong Indigenous soon after the Umbrella Protests in 2014, which favored more radical action in contrast with the city's mainstream pro-democracy movements. He was arrested in February 2016 on charges of “inciting a riot” in Mongkok district during the Lunar New Year. Wong jumped bail and fled to Europe in November 2017. Germany granted him refugee status for political persecution in May 2018. Despite Beijing's claims that the national security law will not be applied retroactively, the inclusion of Ray Wong in the wanted list suggests otherwise. Wong reacted to the news on Twitter:

So the only reason why I was sought for “incitement to secession and collusion with foreign forces ” must be based on my activities before the NSL is in force. Today,#HKGov unveils the fact that they'd use the law retrospectively. — Ray Wong

(@Ray_WongHKI) July 31, 2020

Honcques Laus

The 19-year-old Vietnamese-Hongkonger is the youngest of the six activists. He was arrested in April 2018 after a body search near the Legislative Council found he was carrying a toy gun. The activist was sentenced to 18-month probation by a District Court, but he appealed to a High Court and won. In June 2019, he established the Hongkonger Utilitarian Party, a pro-independence group. Like other activists, he fled to the UK shortly before the security law was enacted, and now seeks political asylum in that country. In response to his “fugitive” status, he wrote on Facebook:

As I can enjoy freedom of speech in the UK, I will dare to express my political opinion freely, and continue to request the international community to impose sanctions against the Hong Kong government and the Chinese government, including sanctions on Carrie Lam, PK Tang and “Winnie the Pooh”.

Wayne Chan

The 30-year-old activist is the convener of the political group Hong Kong Independence Union. Chan joined the Civic Party in 2013 and participated in the Umbrella Protests in 2014. He left the party in 2015 and took a political turn towards advocating for Hong Kong's independence. He was arrested, and then released on bail, for participating in protests in June 2019 that were deemed illegal by the authorities. The activist jumped bail and fled Hong Kong to the UK in June 2020. Chan has kept a low-profile since settling in the UK. He has told Hong Kong Free Press that was not sure why he was included in the list but pondered that the fact that he posted the Hong Kong independence flag on Facebook on July 1 might have drawn the authorities’ attention. In the same interview, he expressed concern over the security of fellow activists in Hong Kong and stressed that he is not afraid of the wanted order:

I would not change my political view after leaving, especially when those in Hong Kong can no longer speak out as they wish.

Simon Cheng

Cheng was a former trade and investment officer at the British Consulate-General in Hong Kong. He was arrested and detained by mainland Chinese authorities during a trip to Shenzhen in August 2019 and was forced to make a video confession for “soliciting prostitutes” in exchange for his release. In November 2019, he said Chinese agents tortured him and forced him to confess that he was a British spy who instigated the anti-extradition protests in Hong Kong. He traveled to the UK in December 2019 and was granted refugee status by the UK on June 26, 2020. Together with other exiled activists, Cheng has been helping Hongkongers to seek asylum abroad. As the Hong Kong government had disqualified pro-democracy candidates en mass from running to the Legislative Council election, Cheng's group of exiled activists are drawing a plan to establish an unofficial parliament-in-exile. He made a brief statement on Facebook regarding the wanted order:

Statement: I keep speaking up and acting for the public cause of our people’s interest and freedom, esp. for those who have no power and wealth, now the totalitarian regime criminalises that and frame me up, then I would take that not as a shame but an honour.

< p class='gv-rss-footer'>Written by Oiwan Lam · comments (0) Donate · Share this: twitter facebook reddit

[onenettvchannel]

#OneNETnewsInvestigates: An Arrest Warrant has issued from the FBI & WHO to it's Professional Gamer and his employee alone at the Hinobi. The concerns of Netflix community, is boycotting this suspect

AUSTIN, TEXAS -- During the game of Smash Jam from the Hinobi Technology HQ... The person has responsible alone by memory resetting the innocent people and 2 victims. But first, he's working overnight on Thursday before EPISODE 1. The newest hit-series on Nickelodeon, known as Glitch Techs.

It was created together by Eric Robles & Dan Milano, as described from the show synopsis... "Two of the Protagonist who work at a game store (Hinobi) as a front for their actual job; battling video-game monsters that have found their way into the real world".

So from now, Ronnie Anne Santiago (our affiliated Nickelodeon NEWS reporter) is on the scene that night on Thursday & Friday morning today (Eastern local time). One local witness says, he's an actual rival to 2 player victims (known as Hector Nieves [a Hinobi trainee] & Miko Kubota [our newest #RadyoPatrol #20 reporter of #NickelodeonNEWS]). He adds according to a local witness, it was an arrogant Black-British professional gamer person, and he was pointed out the 2 victims... both players are indefinitely disqualified temporarily for good. That's a single unfair to happen by illegally glitching the game.

Not only the pro-gamer person in E-Sports, he wasn't a balancedly talented employee of Hinobi Technology HQ to work here. His villain/antagonist suspect name known as "Mitch Williams". It was a classified issue to a Gaming Disorder & Mental Health problem, upon committing a crime to himself (during & outside the private life of Hinobi) and even he's skipping to blabber a General Manager from time to time. The slogan of Hinobi Technology HQ... "The Future is Fun".

On the other hand, he's owning a gaming van to drive all afternoon & evening. Almost often, Mitch was ordering a dinner with a local fastfood restaurant called "Mama Miyamoto's Spaghetti in a Bucket" in the Drive-Thru without paying by shooting a memory reset, almost twice at once. That is resulting a cheating theft for the illegal free food and it's really good, as according to TripAdvisor.

The worst side on that, does she possibly dating on him personally to order up? The shipping name, just like an example of Pokémon's couple... this is what they called #SpaghettiGamerShipping. These theory will remain unanswered if you're lucky on that.

Late afternoon on Friday (Eastern local time), our Radyo Patrol #20 (Miko Kubota) was insulting him without the erasure or interrupting in person, under the Texas & Philippine laws. Both victims sees everything in secret from Mitch Williams himself, not until they requiring to destroy or containing the glitches out first. But sadly, they illegally detaining the 2 victims until further noticed to his Hinobi van (to dealing out a Glitch-gaming Monster alone).

She also founds a single confiscated orange wristband, belongs to Hector Nieves (known as Hi_5) from it's punishment inside this Hinobi van from Mitch. And finally, it's about to go all game-time for this afternoon only. This time, the original glitch source from last Thursday night... turns into a kitten fight in the real world. It does not affect him for killing the Glitch-gaming monsters because... it's all legal & modernally digitalized. After they teleportingly escaped above by jumping in way higher from the Hinobi van, Hector Nieves & Miko Kubota will revenge a technical comeback, with a new objective job (to go undercover).

But during the cat fight, after a single game cat ate up of Mitch... "I am stuck in the belly of a malevolent digital construct so, NO. I am NOT okay! Help me, you morons!". Hector & Miko was declined to help for committing the crime himself in disguise. She warnedly adds, "You're gonna admit what you've done and help us put things right again!". So, he correctedly complied for real; while 2 victims will continue to fight legally. The result, 2 player victims' wins the match; over a Green Kitty for this late afternoon (Eastern local time).

Upon accepting a defeated loser, both victims’ wants themselves to be memory resetted together by force in full; to fire the job out of Hinobi to Mitch Williams. He's not remain every single silent according to Mitch, "You gotta believe me, I wasn't really gonna do it! I was freaked you wouldn't reset. Everybody resets!". The suspect adds, "I am the #1 gamer in this city. You take that away from me, you may as well take everything. Besides, that win was bugged. He wasn't even the real winner. She was."

Miko is the clear winner of Smash Jam Tournament however, as Mitch brokes his silence... "I know I went too far, but do not take this from me. It's what I love. It's who I am." So both victims are turned them over to the Kubota's House for what he's done that late afternoon (Eastern local time).

And finally, a full shorter explanation of Mitch Williams will be revealed to the Kubota family, as a daughter. "So... your daughter wasn't lying when she told you a no-joke-giant-monster hand came out of your TV and trashed your living room."

As effectively by Friday night (Eastern local time), both victims will be promoted the next morning, to a new job at the Hinobi Technology HQ. While the suspect (Mitch Williams) however, will face his several charges on-the-spot to a nearest Police Department outside the Hinobi.

Some netizens on Twitter was hating this suspect on EPISODE 1 throughout the Netflix community.

#GlitchTechs spoilers, but I just love this scene. Mitch Williams is really THAT bitch 😭😂 Props to the writing team on this one, tells you exactly what kind of person Mitch is in about 40 seconds. I hate him SO much, but in the way that you're supposed to hate a character. pic.twitter.com/Weg5AhNipQ

— Eternal 🎮GLITCH TECHS👾 Guy (@EternalFlameGuy) February 21, 2020

WHY MITCH WILLIAMS IS SUCH AN ICON#glitchtechs pic.twitter.com/2bVq1COw8r

— Glitch Techs SEASON 1 IS ALREADY ON NETFLIX (@glitchtechs11) February 23, 2020

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has filed a complaint against this suspect (Mitch Williams) for a serious violation between the Gaming & Mental Health Disorder. Even they ordering a dinner without paying the restaurant on Drive-Thru.

The following charges for his arrest warrant, was amendedly committed to Republic Act #9851: Section 5 or Crimes against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity & Republic Act #10591: Section 85 or The Revised Penal Code. It is COMPLETELY resulted in jail time to 34 years imprisonment for U$D27,600 on both laws combined.

That said, it was all game over on him for this pro-gamer suspect (Mitch Williams) for the incorrected problem, on his gaming & mental health disorder... with a permanent rehab.

PHOTO CREDIT & COURTESY from: 4chan's /co/ & KissCartoon (for a photo news tip)

SHORT DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed from this news report are not those from our affiliates of Nickelodeon & Netflix from this article. Furthermore, the assumptions of this news report... will NOT state or reflect those of our reporters, the station, management, interwebs, and the network. Thanks for reading!

-- OneNETnews Team

[seekingthetruth]

The Subjugation of Democracy

It has been just over two weeks now since the general election.  I have calmed down (slightly) but the rant must continue.  The people have voted and democracy is under threat.

The government claims it has a “stonking” mandate and is branding itself as the “people’s government” whereas the reality is that a minority of the population voted for this government.  Subversion of true democracy has been going on for years with our adversarial two-party system bolstered by the antiquated “first past the post” electoral system.  Both of the major parties historically have had a vested interested in perpetuating this system but it always results in a parliament which is not truly representative of the public and which disenfranchises large groups of people who choose to vote for the smaller parties.

So it is that the current Tory government holds 56% of the seats in parliament, with a majority of 80 BUT only received 45% of the public vote.  Government of the majority by a minority is not true democracy.

What is more worrying though is the explicit threat to our democracy expressed in the Tory manifesto which pledges to curtail the checks and balances on government that are currently in place.  We are seeing today the rise of right-wing populism which can be compared to the rise of fascism in 1930s Germany. 

In previous posts I have looked at two points of similarity common to both periods - extreme jingoistic nationalism and austerity.  This post looks at the third point of similarity - what I call THE SUBJUGATION OF DEMOCRACY.

There is also bizarrely a spooky coincidence - the number 48.

The Rise of Fascism - Article 48

After the First World War Germany was re-shaped into a federal republic comprising a number of states. This was the Weimar Republic and was governed by the Weimar Constitution which attempted to combine aspects of presidential and parliamentary systems with a commitment to social justice.  The intent was admirable but it contained one fatal flaw which ultimately enabled the rise of the Nazi party and the Third Reich - this was “Article 48” which gave the president emergency powers.

The critical paragraph in Article 48 is:

“In case public safety is seriously threatened or disturbed, the Reich President may take the measures necessary to reestablish law and order, if necessary using armed force. In the pursuit of this aim he may suspend the civil rights described in articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 154, partially or entirely.”

Whilst some form of emergency powers are probably necessary within a Constitution a problem arises if there are insufficient checks and balances which could lead to abuse of those powers.  This is of course what happened in Germany.

The rot started to set in in 1930 when Chancellor Heinrich Bruning was faced with combatting the economic crisis caused by the Great Depression.  The actions he took were extremely unpopular and he was forced to invoke a series of emergency measures through Article 48 which eventually led to his cabinet’s resignation in 1932.  Adolf Hitler grabbed the opportunity to become Chancellor in 1933 and Bruning fled Germany in 1934 fearing arrest in the new Nazi regime.

Whilst Article 48 brought about Bruning’s downfall, Hitler seemed to be far more canny in exploiting its weakness to further the rise of the Nazi party.  When he was elected Chancellor he didn’t actually have a majority in the Reichstag (parliament) so he was forced to call elections in March 1933.  Shortly before the election date the Houses of Parliament in Berlin were severely damaged by fire.  The Nazi party immediately claimed that this was the first step of a Communist revolution and used the fire as a pretext for invoking Article 48 through the “Reichstag Fire Decree”, officially known, ironically, as the “Presidential Decree for the Protection of People and State”.

This decree gave the Nazi party incredible powers:

“Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

Shortly afterwards Hitler also pushed through the”Enabling Act”, officially known as the “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich”.  This act officially recognized Hitler as Germany’s dictator and abolished democracy.

The Rise of Right-Wing Populism - Page 48

The Tory manifesto specifically sets out to enshrine in law measures to reduce the accountability of government to the people through their representatives in Parliament and through the Supreme Court.

Ironically the section is entitled “Protect our Democracy” and is laid out largely on page 48 of the manifesto.  The justification for the proposed legislation is in the opening paragraph:

“The failure of Parliament to deliver Brexit – the way so many MPs have devoted themselves to thwarting the democratic decision of the British people in the 2016 referendum – has opened up a destabilising and potentially extremely damaging rift between politicians and people.”

Of special relevance is the following:

“After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts; the functioning of the Royal Prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people. The ability of our security services to defend us against terrorism and organised crime is critical. We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government. We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays. In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates.”

The wording sounds innocuous, as did Article 48, but it refers to all the checks and balances that are in place to allow proper oversight of what the government was trying to push through with Brexit.  Boris Johnson was personally thwarted for breaching the law and the lawful right of Parliament (who represent the people) in challenging the government.  Remember that he illegally prorogued parliament (i.e. shut it down) for five weeks in an attempt to prevent them from effectively challenging his proposed Brexit legislation.

The Tory manifesto is laying virtually the same groundwork as the Enabling Act in Germany in 1933. Remember that that Act was officially entitled “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich” which has an uncannily similar ring to the Tory manifesto’s “a destabilising and potentially extremely damaging rift between politicians and people”.

No legislation has yet been enacted but drawing lessons from history would suggest we need to keep a very close watch on how the legislation unfolds.  The historic comparison could lead to:

The Tories turning the UK into the equivalent of a dictatorship by:

Imposing indefinite Conservative government.  The manifesto says “We will get rid of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act – it has led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action”; and as Johnson said after the Queen’s speech: “This is not a programme for one year or one parliament – it is a blueprint for the future of Britain”

Ensuring the courts cannot stop the government from breaking the law.  “We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.”

Removing our right to protest and using the police and armed forces to enforce that.  “We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government,”

Signs of things to come

Obviously the above is speculation but already there are signs of things to come:

1. Two former conservative MPs, Nicky Morgan and Zac Goldsmith, have been rewarded with peerages and appointed members of the Cabinet.  So we now have non-elected people being members of this government - clearly not a people’s government.

2. The Brexit Withdrawal Bill which has just been passed in parliament has been amended to remove the right of MPs to have oversight over or challenge the terms of the Brexit deal - removing one of the balancing controls over government.

3. Boris Johnson has declared that all-out strikes on public transport will be made illegal under a new Conservative administration following - the first removal of right to protest?

4. The chief executive of the Best for Britain campaign, Naomi Smith, said the plans “should set alarm bells ringing for anyone who believes that parliament must be able to act as a brake on a runaway government.  We must be hyper-vigilant to any chipping away of the checks and balances that keep our democracy functioning.  We have already seen that Johnson is prepared to bend the law to his will – further subversion by stealth cannot be allowed.”

5. Green Party MP Caroline Lucas warned: “Judicial independence is critical to our democracy.  The prime minister has already fallen foul of the Supreme Court. So I find his proposed constitution, democracy and rights commission very worrying.  There must be no attack on our judiciary.”

6. Outgoing Supreme Court president Lady Hale – who famously ruled against Mr Johnson’s five-week prorogation of parliament while wearing a spider brooch – used her recent retirement speech to warn Mr Johnson against political appointment of senior judges - “Judges have not been appointed for party political reasons in this country since at least the Second World War.  We do not want to turn into the Supreme Court of the United States – whether in powers or in process of appointment.”

Where is this leading?

In the 1930’s the Nazi party used a very simple slogan to unite thinking of the population: Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer – One people, One nation, One leader.  The slogan emphasized the absolute control of the party over almost every part of German society and culture, whilst the strong image of the “Leader” had an overriding appeal which overcame any normal level of trust in political leadership.

One people, one nation, one leader - do you see any similarity with the Tories’ “people’s government”, “one nation conservatism” and the stated intent to be ruling for at least 10 years with its implication of just “one leader”?

[wileymarch]

George Washington_Coward or Revolutionary Pacifist?

With the current political climate, Trump's blatant violation of law and The United States Constitution, I felt it important to take a look at the past, to answer for myself the question:  Have all of our political leaders in effect been corrupt, dismissed so casually human rights and law?  Starting from the beginning, we'll take a look in the coming days at each president, from George Washington to Trump, a brief history of 45 presidents and the ways they've benefited or harmed our nation. George Washington was not initially the successful military general history would have us believe.  In fact, more often he was an overwhelming failure, defeated twice by the French, a third time his biggest success was in his ability to turn tail and run.  Washington lost almost every battle he ever fought, yet somehow, he had the charisma to hold his troops together, even when they were watching their comrades fall.  The win he achieved against the British could be seen as a fluke.  So how, you might wonder, did he become the first leader of the free world?  He wasn't. That's correct.  Technically, George Washington was not the first president of the United States.  Let that sink in a moment, your history teacher lied to you!  Okay, for many of us knowing that history is predominately lies and embellishments to make a prettier version of the truth and create a sense of indoctrinated patriotism is not surprising.  In fact, many of us have learned to take it in stride and educate ourselves instead of wholesale believing what we're told. There were actually 14 presidents before Washington, actually presidents of the Continental Congress.  We'll evaluate them in the next post.  Washington is credited with laying the foundation of our country.  In truth, it was his fourteen predecessors that built the groundwork for our country, declaring our independence from the British Crown, establishing Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government to create a checks and balances system, and prevent us from becoming a dictatorship. Washington suffered with low self-esteem and a nearly unbearable anxiety over becoming president of the United States.  I'm sure the sixty-nine members of the Electoral College saw this as a benefit to themselves and their own designs on power.  Indeed, Washington likened his election to presidency as a "death sentence". Trump is not alone in being venerated as a "savior".  Washington's own cabinet singled him out as appointed by "Divine Providence"  to be the "savior".   One might wonder how a cowardly general became the first "American Messiah" and was referred to as "Your Excellency" as opposed to Mr. President.  The answer, Propaganda, the same as today. Many of the men involved in Washington's election as president were worried that their puppet would back out, turn tail and run once again.  Even Washington's own wife Martha did not believe her husband fit for the duties of presidency. Washington was treated on his journey from his home to New York as if he were being coronated.  He was a "Federalist", later to be known as the first Republican and those who pushed him into presidency told him, "you are now king, under a different name."

Newspapers such as the Federal Gazette, owned by a leader of the Federalist Party John Fenno, touted Washington's kingly procession, labeling him the unitor of our country, "savior" of our country and a "great patriot".  Washington however, did not initially enjoy all the ceremony and pageantry, at one point even sneaking out of town ahead of his travelling party to avoid it.  It all seemed to have been a bit too arranged and over the top that as he rode over the bridge into Trenton, he was greeted with women and young girls draped in white gowns throwing flower petals at the feet of his horses as they rode through, proclaiming him the defender of women.  Shocking, seeing as how the battle at Trenton had been a very small one but history would have us all believe Washington had led his forces against insurmountable odds and a vast enemy, neither of which were true.  And many of the Hessian troops stationed at Trenton escaped Washington's attack.  

The association with Fenno is of note all throughout the early years of the United States because Alexander Hamilton and John Adams both bailed Fenno out of bankruptcy in exchange for his loyalty in printing whatever Adams and Hamilton saw fit.  Hamilton himself frequently wrote under pseudonyms to influence public opinion.  Thomas Jefferson, so enraged by the lies spread by the Federal Gazette set up his own papers the Aurora, edited by Benjamin F. Bache and the National Gazette, edited by Phillip Freneau.  

Washington, upon adoration of lovely women, finally gave in to all the pomp and pageantry bestowed in his "honor" when he arrived at his new home, Cherry Street in Manhattan, New York.  He was the first president to give an inauguration speech and spent much of it defending himself, claiming he hadn't done it to gain wealth or power.  This would immediately lead one to believe that was precisely why he'd become a puppet to these men, especially since much of his personal wealth was actually that of his wife, Martha from her first marriage.  Washington himself was bankrupt.  

James Madison attempted to keep the speech out of public circulation. Because of George Washington being a soft-spoken man, the crowd hadn't heard his actual words anyway giving Madison the opportunity to lie about what Washington had said and felt.  Madison then took it upon himself to completely rewrite Washington's speech for print so that no one would know the truth, which is the one most history books defer to.  Madison in turn wrote the response from Congress and the return response from Washington, which shows, Washington's presidency was a well-planned and well-executed means of rallying people to do the bidding of wealthy, power hungry white men by the intentional manipulation of people's perception.   The buttons on the brown suit from Washington's inauguration were engraved with eagles, establishing Washington as a down-to-earth patriot and was made by Jeremiah Wadsworth's Woolen Manufactory.  Wadsworth would later become a congressman.  

The "Holy Bible" only became a part of the inauguration proceedings at the last moment when it was decided by Congressional committee that this would indeed make Washington a "man of the average people".  Having no bible anywhere, a mad scramble resulted in a Masonic lodge providing one, which is delightfully amusing in hindsight.  The church service after the inauguration was held at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, still standing today.  

In these early years is where the extreme partisan battle between Democrats and Republicans was born.  So as you can understand, propaganda, puppeteering, money and aggrandization have all been a part of the political landscape in the United States since its inception.  

While much of this post points out George Washington's flaws, it is important to note, though many white people saw slavery as an accepted institution, Washington was not among them. Though a slave owner himself, he came to see the practice of "owning" other human beings as something reprehensible and amoral, and attempted to prevent the importation of any more slaves into the United States.  It was his full intention to free all enslaved people in the United States and he worked tirelessly toward this goal.  

In the case of his military career, Washington hated violence, he hated fighting and killing.  Yet, when his men were in the worst of circumstances, he stood by them, fed them, clothed them, cared for the sick and wounded, spending his own money and resources to take care of them.  Washington often tried to remain neutral in matters of foreign politics, wishing instead to maintain peace and economic growth.  His death by epiglottitis and hypovolemic shock (rapid blood loss) is interesting, considering he remained a very vocal opponent to slavery, and the egregious treatment of indigenous peoples after his retirement from office.  However, his spoiled and tempestuous wife's notorious temperament and pro-slavery beliefs seemed to derail Washington's attempts to perpetuate a gradual ending to the practice of enslavement and theft of native land until the day he died.  

The many men who played a part in George Washington's election were schemers, thieves and conmen.  Gathering from his initial speech, Washington was somewhat aware of this and felt trapped by it.  In coming posts, we'll take a look at how these untrustworthy, greedy men used Washington as a pawn to control the American people and unite minorities to be duped into frauds like the National Bank, established by Alexander Hamilton, who was the direct cause of America's first financial crisis and the beginning of national debt.

Washington was a soft-spoken, kind and humble man who truly cared for the troops and the people he led, often willingly suffering immense hardships right alongside them.  George Washington was "chosen" by malicious and ambitious men because people trusted his simple nature.  He was honest, and in many respects, he was the "every man" of the time.  They knew people would unite behind him and this would further their own agendas.  His own wife had feared when he left to take the oath of presidency that she might never see him alive again.  He lived two years after he left office only to be killed at the hands of his physician.  As George Washington was an incredibly healthy and vibrant man, even for the time given his age, a conspiracy theorist might wonder if his death was indeed a cleverly disguised assassination or a case of medical malpractice as our high school history books suggested. Sources:  Smithsonian        National Park Service        Mount Vernon                History.com

[policebrutalitysite01-blog]

Police Brutatlity, Abuse, and Hatred of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Belgium

INTRODUCTION

This article is a hint about some of the past stories of abuses on asylum seekers by the Belgian police and high level of hatred exercised by the Belgian political party (Vlaams Belang) meaning Flemish Interest) against asylum seekers and foreigners in general. On several occasions Amnesty International (AI) has called on the Belgian Government to respect the human rights of asylum seekers and to put an end to the brutality and abuses faced by asylum seekers from the police force in “close center” (a detention center where rejected asylum seekers are kept for deportation) near airport. When these complaints were launched by Amnesty International, the Belgian Government always pledged to stop further police brutality and abuse of asylum seekers but nothing has been done about it. Until now the Belgian Government still forcefully deport asylum seekers coming to them for protection, back to their country of origin, which does not comply with the 1951 Geneva Convention.

Most people who seek asylum in industrialized countries are considered as economic migrants, someone who voluntarily leaves their own country of origin aiming for a better life another country (definition by Wigan Council, UK). Perhaps they are fleeing from dictatorial and corrupt regimes such as that of my country, Cameroon, which tends to affect the citizens of that country economically. In my own words I call it “economic persecution”. Fleeing from other types of persecution in my opinion must not be in conformity with the definitions of the United Nations pertaining to refugees and asylum seekers. These people should be accepted and protected in any country they seek for asylum and find refuge than to be brutalized and abused in any form. In this article, citations are given to prove the police brutality, hatred and abuse of asylum seekers and refugees as stated in the above heading.

WHO IS A REFUGEE?

Under International Law, a refugee is a person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual resident; has a well founded fear of persecution(s) of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group of political opinion; and is unable to return or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of the country, or to return there, for the fear of persecution (Wikipedia-open content encyclopedia).

WHO IS AN ASYLUM SEEKER?

In 2004 the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines an asylum seeker is a person who flees his own country and seek sanctuary in another state, he applies for ‘asylum’-the right to be recognized as a bona fide refugee and receive legal protection and material assistance.

For many asylum seekers, for example, the Government or institutions in the country of origin do not necessarily impose persecution. Some may face violence at the hands of mafia networks, armed or dominant majority groups in connection with factors that are not directly political, such as ethnicity. Others may be threatened for having a lifestyle that involves a socially unacceptable choice of spouse, sexual orientation etc. Some people are threatened and persecuted without fully meeting the demands of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees. Poverty, while a commonly factor “pushing” migration is difficult to define. Many undocumented aliens and unauthorized residents identify varying thresholds of hardship at which they where motivated to migrate. This generic term therefore covers a wider range of facts (Martiniello, 2004).

Martiniello’s point should be fast taken into consideration because, normally where there is poverty and famine, people as well as livestock are forced to leave their niche for survival, which sometimes triggers exodus. I hold his arguments because they may help to redefine the concept of refugee better than as stated by International Law. Failure to revisit these concepts under the principles and guidelines provided by Martiniello, many people will face double persecutions both in their countries of origin and in the host countries. There are many other types of persecutions that can qualify a person as a refugee, which is not mentioned in the definition of refugee itself and I think this should be addressed by the United Nations for a broader definition. For example, imagine someone in a less developed country losses his business ventures accidentally by fire, and in a highly corrupted country with poor insurance policies and slow judiciary procedures, it takes several years to get compensation from the insurance company. Meanwhile this person and the entire family depend solely on this business. In a country with a poor economic system and little or no hope of finding another job, given the opportunity to leave his country to another country for a better life, he will not hesitate.

POLICE BRUTALITIES AND ABUSES OF REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS

Amnesty International 1999 report criticized Belgium for its maltreatment of asylum seekers inside the “close centers”. For example, for a second time, Belgium was included among the states named in Amnesty’s report. Of major concern in Belgium, the document exposes police brutality and restrictive asylum policies. One of the cases highlighted as stated by Tyler in 1999 was that of Hovhannes Karapetyan, an American refugee. After an unsuccessful attempt to deport him, he was return to Steenokkerzeel “close center” where guards assaulted him, breaking his arm causing him to lose consciousness. He was then put into solitary confinement in this condition. When he asked to see a doctor, the guards assaulted him once more. He was only taken to the hospital the next day.

On September 22, 11 gendarmes took a young Nigerian woman called Semira Adamu bound in handcuffs, to a plane at Brussels National airport to be deported. When she started shouting and trying to resist deportation, two of the officers pressed a cushion over her face. She fell unconscious and died later that evening. According to doctors, she succumbed to brain hemorrhage resulting from a contusion. The tragic fate of Semira Adamu shook the Belgian population. More than 5,000 people gathered on September 28 outside the cathedral of St. Michael in Brussels during the memorial service for the young woman. This led to the resignation of the socialist party interior minister Louis Tobbak the next day, admitting political responsibility for the violent death of the 20 year old asylum seeker (Nees, 1998).

According to the Concluding Observation Report No. 6, of the Human Rights Committee in Belgium, the committee takes note of new instructions relating to the methods and techniques under which deportations are carried out. As a follow up in Report No. 13, the committee expressed grave concern over the widespread police brutality against suspects in custody. The committee regrets the lack of transparency in conducting investigations on the part of the police authorities and difficulty in obtaining access to information.

Concordant to the Institute of Racial Relations in London, Amnesty International has expressed dismay over reports of police brutality in Belgium, often accompanied by acts of racial discrimination. Amnesty International calls for people in custody to have access to a lawyer and a medical doctor. Excessive force has been used during deportation and rejected asylum seekers have been confined for too long in transit sections of the Brussels National airport. These continuous allegations made by Amnesty International about the Belgian police brutality to refugees and asylum seekers, now qualifies the international community to openly criticize the Belgian government for doing too little in stopping these abuses, which still goes on in detention centers. One is forced to ponder for how long shall we wait for another Semira Adamu to happen before something needs be done to put an end to these brutality, hatred and prejudice?

HATRED FOR REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS

The hatred of the radical Flemish political party (Vlaams Belang) is now noticeable to every foreigner in Belgium. This very political party was formally known as Vlaams Blok, and after a controversial racist statement made by the former president, Filip Dewinter, the party was banned and fined by the Supreme Court to pay 36,000 euros. To save its finance, they then emerged with another name Vlaams Belang. They don’t like the presence of asylum seekers and refugees in their country.

In Belgium, the issue of political parties, which resort to racist or xenophobic propaganda, is of special concern to European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). Much remains to be done to ensure that foreigners and persons of immigrant backgrounds enjoy genuinely equal opportunities in employment. The increase in manifestation of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia calls for concerted efforts of Belgian society as a whole against these phenomena (Council of Europe, 2004).

The president of Human Right and Peace Campaign (HURPEC) wrote that the 1951 Geneva Convention clearly opposes the return and forced deportation of any refugee to that country where he/she fears persecution either he/she is living legally or illegally. But the Belgian Government is forcefully deporting refugees, giving them extreme torture and punishment, which is a violation to the Geneva Convention (Karki, 2002).

In my view, the torture given to asylum seekers in detention by the police is not only an abuse of human right, but hatred against human race no matter which race it might be. The deportation of refugees and asylum seekers is not an idea but upholding the 1951 Geneva Convention by regularizing all rejected asylum seekers, refugees and enabling them to work and pay their taxes without any discrimination. This can be supported by the statement made by the British Home Secretary, Charles Clark saying that saying that there may be a case permitting some failed asylum seekers to work in the UK, during a debate with BBC Two’s Newsnight on April 26, 2005. He was responding to a suggestion from the audience that immigrants will better integrate into the British society if they paid tax and National Insurance. In 2003, Belgium was one of the selected industrialized counties with the lowest number of asylum applications received (16,900). The applicants came from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Russian Federation, Serbia-Montenegro, Iran and Cameroon (UNHCR, 2004). Believing this low asylum application figures, there is just no need for anti asylum policies to be introduced in the parliament as wanted by Vlaams Belang in order to push all asylum seekers and refugees to limbo.

It is hard to imagine that a councilor of Vlaams Belang Sint Gilles–Waas near the city of Antwerp was arrested in connection with the shooting of two men in a café in Sint Gilles Pauwels. One of the victims died and the other was seriously wounded. (IRR News, 2004). This shows how barbaric some of their members can be. The European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) sent a letter to the Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt to express concerns at reports that Belgium plans to expels Slovak Romani asylum seekers. The ERRC called Prime Minister Verhofstadt’s attention to the fact that the collective expulsion of aliens is in contravention of Article 4, protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ERRC, 2000).

We can see that sometimes even the government can organize widespread expulsion of refugees in a systematic order without the knowledge of NGOs who fight for the rights and protection of these refugees and asylum seekers. This is just an aide memoire of what refugees and asylum seekers are going through in Belgium today. Deporting a person, who has successfully fled persecution from his or her country, back to the country of origin, is like burying that person alive who is, to my view, tantamount to crime against humanity or whatever crime you might link it to.

CONCLUSION

There is still racism, discrimination and hatred of asylum seekers, refugees and foreigners in Belgium. The Belgian people and politicians should recall that their former king Badouin, son of Leopold III, joined his father in exile in 1945 in Switzerland as a refugee, while others where also refugees and internally displaced in their own country during the Second World War German (Nazi) invasion of Belgium. The military was not able to liberate their country from the German occupation. All thanks to the British and U.S soldiers for shedding their blood for the Belgian people. I urge the Vlaams Belang chairman, Frank Vanhecke with his radical views on refugees and asylum seekers to reflect history, modernize their ways of thinking, and accept the facts that things and time has changed. Belgium needs refugees and asylum seekers not only to work in their apple farms, but to be fully integrated in the society and given the permission to work if qualified for the job such as doctors, engineers, soldiers etc, as they will all abide to the laws that governs the Belgian soil. Refugees and asylum seekers can be of great importance to the state and it’s economy. Fighting against police brutality and protecting all refugees, asylum seekers and other foreigners from abuses and racism is yet to be seen in Belgian institutions before there can be equal opportunities for everyone.

It is important to note that the policies of Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) that preach hatred against refugees and asylum seekers, also frighten other foreigners who live and work legally in Belgium and worse of all tarnish the reputation of the state as racist. In my opinion, if Vlaams Belang doesn’t stop their discriminative and hatred policies on asylum seekers, refugees and foreigners, the international community should consider them as a political and terrorist organization for example Irish Republican Army (IRA) of Northern Ireland, ETA of Police Brutality Lawyer  Spain and, Hizbolla of Syria etc. Because they are trying to use democracy to kill human rights that has long been established and achieved under hard struggle.

[feliciateoyq-blog]

Culture of Fear

In this post, I will be discussing a new legislation proposed by the Singapore Government with regards to fake news and how it possibly affects people in my country.

On 1stApril 2019, the Government came up with a newly proposed anti-fake news law called the “Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act” (POFMA). While the Government has stated that this law only applies to “false statements of fact” and not criticism or opinions [1], many have argued that it merely serves as another way the Government is controlling free speech and censorship in Singapore.

In the eyes of the SG Government, this new legislation is important and necessary because the spread of misinformation and fake news threatens Singapore’s social cohesion and possibly our national security. It is Singapore’s diversity that makes it particularly vulnerable to such problems. However, it’s difficult for this legislation (or any for that matter) to tackle this problem because most social issues are not debates between fact vs fiction but between ideology or worldview, where everyone has their own opinion on what is true and false. People will naturally come into conflict when we present our ideologies and personal beliefs as platonic truths.

In my opinion, this new law simply reinforces the culture of fear that already exists amongst us Singaporeans. People are more than likely to accept that it’s probably better to self-censor. After all, we all know what is likely to happen to someone who actively proclaims his/her belief in an “anti-establishment” or goes against the Government’s values. A well-known example is, 20-year old Amos Yee [2] who makes political YouTube videos and had compared Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to Hitler and Jesus, as well as offensive videos to the Muslim and Christian communities. Amos Yee’s actions resulted in him being jailed and fined on more than one occasion. The harsh sentence caught the attention of The United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye [3]. He advised Singapore to review the sentencing as it was a violation of human rights to the freedom of expression.

The POFMA will affect ordinary citizens like myself more than it does for journalists who do not do their due diligence before reporting on controversial topics or spread misinformation. I find myself refraining from engaging in any online discussion about politics and shy away from journalists that are looking for people to interview about genuine problems that result in public displeasure.

Perhaps the Government fails to see how such legislation and censorship laws is undermining a healthy democracy. Murdock [4] states that discursive openness is also considered sensible in a democratic society. All views should be heard and understood for people to discern the truth and for society to self-maintain. While self-censorship and fake news are both undesirable outcomes for society, the Government needs to understand that it is driven by fear and people fear what they don’t trust.

References:

[1]https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/govt-makes-initial-decision-on-falsehood-but-courts-are-final-arbiter-of-truth-k-shanmugam

[2]https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/public-prosecutor-v-amos-yee-pang-sang/

[3]https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16213&LangID=E

[4]Murdock, G. (1991). Patrolling the Border: British Broadcasting and the Irish Question in the 1980s. Journal Of Communication, 41(4), 104-115, Issn: 0021-9916 doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02334.x