Wessex Scene Crime & Criminality. by Wessex Scene

CRIME

WHAT ITâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S REALLY LIKE TO REPORT A CRIME 04-05 CRIME

YOUR RIGHTS AS A STUDENT TENANT 22

CURIOUS LAWS AND CUSTOMS AROUND THE WORLD 31 1

E DITO R Ivan Morris Poxton editor@wessexscene.co.uk DE P UTY EDI TO R Zach Sharif deputy-editor@wessexscene.co.uk H E AD O F PRI NT D E S I G N Rac hel Winter design@wessexscene.co.uk H E AD O F I MAGERY Avila D iana Chidum e image@wessexscene.co.uk H E AD O F MARKETI N G Joe Br io dy publicity@wessexscene.co.uk FEATURES EDITO R Linnea Lagerstedt features@wessexscene.co.uk POL I TICS EDITO R Charlotte Colombo politics@wessexscene.co.uk OPINI O N EDI TO R Rachel Mather opinion@wessexscene.co.uk SC IENCE & TECH E D I TO R Lau ra Nelso n science@wessexscene.co.uk LIFESTYL E EDI TO R Me gan Ha rt lifestyle@wessexscene.co.uk IN T ERNATIO NAL E D I TO R Tabassum Rahman international@wessexscene.co.uk T RAVEL EDI TO R George Hart travel@wessexscene.co.uk SPORTS EDITO R Aarya ma n Baner ji sport@wessexscene.co.uk SUB- EDI TO R Am y Picknell SUB- EDI TO R An n abel Gadd SUB- EDI TO R Emily Fry SUB- EDI TO R Hazel Jonckers VP DCI Evie Reilly vpcomms@soton.ac.uk

WELCOME EVERYONE! Welcome to Wessex Scene’s final produced issue of the 2018/19 academic year! In this issue, we focus on the theme of crime. This magazine is effectively the People’s Choice issue as it was chosen from several possible themes by contributors. The decision to do this reflected our desire to make every themed issue as relevant and interesting to University of Southampton students as possible. I am really excited by the content produced after respecting the democratic will of our contributors (producing a Brexit magazine issue definitely didn’t influence that sentence’s wording!). A fantastic range of articles considering all manner of angles of focus on the theme of crime have been produced, from bizarre laws through British history to explaining how DNA fingerprinting works. Yet underlying areas of focus have recurred throughout, and sometimes linked back to previous themed issues. For instance, several articles have discussed the topic of sexual violence. It’s one whose profile has been raised greatly in the University community thanks in no small part to the engagement of student societies, in particular Sexual Consent Awareness Society (SCA) and FemSoc. Following a recent large-scale student survey by SCA and SUSU on the topic, the University and Students’ Union have unveiled an action plan to implement changes in the way such cases are handled and to promote sexual consent awareness further from the 2019/2020 academic year onwards. With many of our exceptionally talented team this year moving onto pastures new over this summer, we hope this issue provides a fitting farewell, showcasing quality articles and illustrations. Please read through the whole issue - it’d be a crime not to! Your editor, IVAN MORRIS POXTON Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this magazine belong to each author alone - Wessex Scene is a neutral publication which aims to publish views from across the student body. To respond with an opposing opinion, please contact opinion@wessexscene.co.uk or join our Opinion Writers’ Group.

FRONT COVER IMAGE BY PAIGE MICHEL

CRIME

FEATURES WHAT IT’S REALLY LIKE TO REPORT A 04 CRIME THE FAILING OF THE CATHOLIC 06 CHURCH ON THE SEXUAL ABUSE SCANDAL

POLITICS 9 SHAMIMA BEGUM: CRIMINAL OR VICTIM?

THAT’S LEGAL?! A HELPFUL GUIDE 08 TO BRITAIN’S MOST BIZARRE LAWS

10 EQUALITY IN THE LAW

OPINION NOTORIETY IN THE MEDIA 14 THE PORTRAYAL OF CRIMINALS 16

SCIENCE & TECH 18 DRUG -TAKING: A VICTIMLESS CRIME? 20 DNA TECHNOLOGY IN COLD CASES

LIFESTYLE YOUR RIGHTS AS A STUDENT 22 TENANT

INTERNATIONAL

THE PLATE POLICE 24 BEING POOR IS NOT A CRIME! 26

28 GADDAFI’S KILLING: HEROISM OR WAR CRIME? 29 THE TOKYO TRIALS 30 ABUSE IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

TRAVEL CURIOUS LAWS AND CUSTOMS 31 AROUND THE WORLD BRITS’ BEHAVIOUR ABROAD 32

SPORT 34 2019’S RACISM IN FOOTBALL

W ESSEX SCENE. CO . UK @ W ES S E XS CE NE CRIME

F B . C OM / W S C E N E @OF F IC IAL W E S S E X S C E N E

CRIME

WHAT IT’S REALLY LIKE TO REPORT A CRIME WORDS BY LINNEA LAGERSTEDT IMAGE BY SEAN KEAR I reported my first crime back in November 2017, and came out the other end bawling my eyes out. I decided to go in alone. Mistake number one. When arriving at the police station I went to the counter and said I had to report a crime. The first thing to know is that you’re not let into the investigation rooms until you’ve given an initial account of what’s happened. For me, that meant telling a male officer that I’d been sexually assaulted, in a waiting room with other people. He was civil and kept his voice down, and the questions weren’t invasive, but it was still a scary experience. As I went back to sit down and wait to see someone, I couldn’t help looking around and wondering if the other people there had heard, and what they thought of me. Once in the investigations room I met with two officers specialising in sexual assaults. These women were doing their jobs. It’s not their fault I had such a bad experience. The questions asked, however, were brutal. I was reliving the most difficult experience of my life 3 days after it had happened, and I was also told this was only the brief account. If it went to court, I would have to explain in further detail even though I’d already told them all I could. The thing with trauma is that time stops. A year and a half later, I still couldn’t tell you whether my assault lasted 2 minutes or 10. When panic kicks in, all logic goes out the window and it’s difficult to keep track of your story. Consequently, when I accidentally misspoke and contradicted myself during the interview, I was informed that lying to an officer and reporting a false assault was a serious crime. I broke down, and she asked me why this scared me if I wasn’t CRIME

lying. The issue is, with these crimes, the victim is so often mistrusted that I was terrified I’d get persecuted instead of my predator. This played a huge part in me dropping the case. To make matters worse, they asked me what I was wearing and how much I’d been drinking. Typical right? They did this because they wanted to find me on the CCTV, and they wanted to know if I was too drunk to consent. However, whatever context they’re presented in, those questions have certain connotations, and the thoughts of self-blame came flooding to my head. The rest of the day was a blur, but I vividly remember being in a lecture after coming back from the station, tears silently streaming down my face. None of my coursemates knew what had happened to me so I thought I had to put on a brave face. Overall, my experience was so scary and traumatic in itself that I decided not to press any charges. I didn’t know who the man was and I didn’t think they’d find him. If the media has taught me anything, it’s that rapists seldom get the punishment they deserve. The police wanted to drive me to Portsmouth to perform an invasive rape kit which would involve pictures and swabs, taken as I stand naked and afraid amongst strangers. It just wasn’t worth it putting myself through more agony if nothing was going to come from it. So yes, my experience wasn’t great. However, that doesn’t mean others can’t be better, you just have to be prepared for what’s going to happen. You won’t be coddled, and it’ll be scary, but if you know what’s going to happen it doesn’t have to be that bad.

CRIME

The Failing of The Cath The Sexual A WORDS BY BETH KIMBER-BRADSHAW IMAGE BY EMILY BEASLEY Numerous accounts of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church have circulated in the news over the last year. This isn’t a new issue; sexual abuse in the Catholic Church has spanned more than 30 years and the devastation it causes for survivors is virtually endless. Here, I’ll discuss three failings of the Catholic Church: the scale in which children weren’t protected, the failure to hold perpetrators of sexual abuse accountable, and the Church’s lack of transparency. Recently, Cardinal George Pell was convicted for assaulting two 13-year-old boys. Pell was the third-most powerful church official and the highest ranking in Australia, but the sexual abuse crisis has spanned countries, decades, and affected tens of thousands of children. In the 1980s, the media covered sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, with attention continuing into the 1990s and increasing in the early 2000s. The Spotlight Investigation, from The Boston Globe, demonstrated the extent of the abuse and the cover-ups. In 2004, a report found there were more than 10,000 cases of sexual abuse against children and more than 4,000 priests had faced sexual abuse allegations over 50 years in the US. In 2009, a report found sexual abuse in Ireland in Catholic schools and orphanages occurred for most of the 20th century. Despite this extensive coverage, almost two decades after the initial revelations, names of perpetrators and of cases of abuse are still being made public and for every new revelation, more survivors come forward. In 2017, an inquiry found tens of thousands of children were abused in Catholic institutions in Australia. In mid-August 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court released a grand jury report: the document named 300 priests who perpetrated abuse, with more than 1,000 victims. This is just one state. Across other US investigations prosecutors estimated a similar number of victims. In Germany, the number of victims is estimated as at least 3,677, with more than half having been younger than 13. In Ireland, tens of thousands. Chile has opened investigations into 100 priests; courts have ordered the Catholic Church to pay compensation to the victims, while stories of abuse are also emerging in Argentina. In 2013, the Vatican’s ambassador to the Dominican Republic was charged with abusing young

boys - he died before a criminal trial. In 2018, Monsignor Carlo Capella was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography. He was sentenced to five years in prison. The Vatican itself has also seen cases of sexual abuse. In February 2019, the Vatican sexual abuse summit saw five survivors who pre-recorded statements of their abuse, including harrowing details of what happened and how the Church responded. Survivors were called liars, were physically and sexually abused and one victim was forced to have three abortions. The survivors spoke about the long-lasting effects: the trauma, flashbacks and the effect on their families and communities. Many people hoped a zero-tolerance attitude would start following increasing public pressure. Yet, despite Pope Francis’ repeated apologies, last year there was no mandatory safeguarding policy to protect young people. Additionally, the closing to Pope Francis’ speech at the summit was defensive, with half of his speech consisting of highlighting sexual abuse in communities and families. Whilst this is absolutely an issue, the summit was specifically dealing with the harm thousands of priests have caused. Previously, a case of abuse in Argentina saw Jiulio Grassi convicted with a 15 year sentence for abusing children at his foundation. At the time, Pope Francis commissioned a study which concluded the priest was innocent, that the victims were lying and there should never have been a trial. Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta was brought to the Vatican by Francis. In 2017, Zanchetta resigned and was under investigation for sexual misconduct. Whilst the Vatican claims there were no allegations before 2017, local churches argue they raised the alarm about Zanchetta’s behaviour in 2015. In January 2018, Pope Francis called the allegations against priests in Chile slander. He may have apologised since, but Chilean criminal prosecutors have had to raid church archives to seize documents.

CRIME

holic Church on Abuse Crisis The scale of the abuse is made possible by the Catholic Church’s systematic cover-up from clergy and church leaders. Reports of sexual abuse weren’t passed on to the police or law enforcement. Those accused would be moved into other positions, where they would still likely have contact and access to children. The Catholic Church deliberately hid the extent of sexual abuse, destroying documents and failing to compile records to assist the prosecution of perpetrators. The Vatican has files but refuses to share them with civil authorities. It declined to assist with inquiries in Ireland, it declined to name senior church leaders who covered-up the abuse. For researchers, such as for the report in Germany, they didn’t receive original files, and some files were destroyed or manipulated. Catholics report a massive loss of confidence in religious leaders and they have expressed raw anger. People have left the Church or attended others, and at the heart of the issue, thousands of children and adults will live with the trauma of sexual abuse. The Pope

and the churches’ apologies are not enough. For actual change, the Church needs to address the problem and give all reports of Clarity is needed on how perpetrators will be held responsible and how people who sexual abuse to law enforcement cover up the crimes will be punished. Real change is needed, so that the victims are at the centre of the concern. Pope Francis promised this in his new legalislation at authorities. the end of March.

CRIME

THAT’S LEGAL?! A HELPFUL GUIDE TO BRITAIN’S MOST BIZARRE LAWS If the eternal circle-jerking of Brexit negotiations hasn’t clued you in, the British legal system is not the most sensible thing in the world. There are plenty of laws that keep us safe, that ensure our rights are protected and that we are granted a fair judicial process. But there have also been no small number of bizarre laws, many of which were not repealed until the last few centuries, and some of which are still in effect today (though arguably ceremonially, rather than in practice). Here’s a rundown on some of these laughable laws. The Law: Eating on Christmas Day is illegal. Repealed?: Yes, after 1644. If you can believe it, you weren’t actually allowed to eat anything on Christmas Day in 1644. It happened to fall on a fasting day, back in puritan-era England. Luckily this one didn’t last even one year, paving the way nicely for the annual Christmas stuffing. The Law: It’s illegal to handle salmon in a suspicious way. Repealed?: Nope! Under the Salmon Act of 1986, ‘a person shall be guilty of an offence if, at a time when he believes or it would be reasonable for him to suspect that a relevant offence has at any time been committed in relation to salmon, trout, eels, lampreys, smelt and freshwater fish.’ This one will make you think twice about buying anything from that fishmonger with the shifty eyes in Sainsbury’s (other supermarkets with shifty-eyed fishmongers are available). The Law: In Scotland, it’s illegal to be drunk whilst handling a cow. Repealed?: Nope! Brought in during the nineteenth century, this bizarrely specific law still holds today. One would imagine it has everything to do with health and safety, but whether it applies more to the man or to the cow remains to be seen. The Law: If a man is unintentionally killed by another man felling a tree, the deceased’s family legally own the tree. Repealed?: Yes, over 1,000 years ago. This one’s truly historic. Harold the Great’s law code once

stated that ‘if a man unintentionally kills another man by letting a tree fall on him, the tree shall be given to the kinsmen of the slain.’ Whilst I’m not entirely sure what catharsis could be achieved by lopping up the murderous tree, it’s good to know that forestry was responsible - if not very safe - even back then. The Law: Archery groups found guilty of accidentally shooting a pedestrian can be pardoned by the British Monarch. Repealed?: Officially no! Okay, so I really do not recommend that you try this out for yourself, but according to Henry VIII’s laws on archery, the accidental maiming of a civilian with a bow and arrow could be relieved with The King’s Pardon. It was also a legal requirement of all men to practice with a bow and arrow regularly, although this rule was repealed in the 1960s’. However, in theory the King’s Pardon has never been officially revoked. That said, pegging a runner on Avenue Campus with a bow and arrow probably won’t earn you Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s good graces. Know of any other bizarre laws? Ever been caught handling salmon suspiciously? Let us know!

WORDS BY ELLIS MURRELL IMAGE BY SEAN KEAR

SHAMIMA BEGUM: Criminal or Victim? WORDS BY CHARLOTTE COLOMBO IMAGE BY HELENA HENRY The case of Shamima Begum has dominated headlines recently, with a focus on one fundamental question: Should she be allowed back to the UK? By attempting to revoke her citizenship, the British Government have clearly made up their mind, but I would argue that this case is isn’t as simple as some of the media presents it to be. Although the grey area and complex factors at play here don’t completely excuse Begum, we equally shouldn’t ignore them when making our judgement in this situation. Begum is one of three infamous “Bethnal Green Girls” who, as teenagers, were radicalised online and travelled to Syria to become “housewives” to ISIS fighters. Recently, it has been questioned whether Begum was truly a “housewife” or a lot more actively involved in some of ISIS’s atrocities, with some reports alleging that she stitched suicide bombers into their vests, carried a rifle and was one of the feared “morality police”. Either way, it cannot be denied that even if she was “just” a wife, she was still complicit as she flew over to Syria with the purpose of giving herself to what she was convinced was the “noble” cause of ISIS. For the media and general public, Begum’s involvement in ISIS is made worse and all the more unforgivable due to her perceived lack of empathy. In interviews she has recounted some of the horrors she has witnessed like a severed head in a bin with a calmness many seem to interpret as being dangerous and sociopathic. This, of course, may well be the case. Yet we also can’t rule out the role trauma plays in Shamima’s perceived “unrepentant” attitude. Psychologically, it’s not unusual for those who have experienced severe, violent trauma to “shut off ” their emotions as a subconscious coping mechanism. If their mind and body become incapable of processing the extreme levels of distress following

CRIME

their trauma, it’s a natural coping mechanism to repress those feelings associated with the extreme situations they face. Thus they can come across as “numb” and desensitised to these experiences, as is common with victims of abuse. Speaking of abuse, we need to give appropriate consideration to the fact that Shamima was a child when she went to Syria. Although this is something that is often discussed when considering her own criminal culpability (and this is a fair point to make, of course), doesn’t that make her online grooming all the more sinister? She was essentially a child that was groomed online, and whilst terrorism is a whole different ball-game to other types of online grooming, we cannot overlook how her age and naivety made her the perfect target to groom and brainwash. If she has been systematically groomed at such a young age, this surely stunted her development and maturity, leaving her a vulnerable victim to Stockholm Syndrome. I also think it goes without saying that whilst she consented to marriage in Syria, is a 15-year-old really capable of consent? Especially if that consent was given after months of grooming and brainwashing. We cannot ignore the fact that a teenager has been impregnated multiple times by a man much older than her after months of manipulation. Surely this counts as statutory rape? Ultimately, whilst I don’t think Shamima Begum should be completely excused for her involvement with terrorism (far from it, actually), I do think that we need to take some of the complexities of this case into consideration: something that mainstream media seems to be failing to do.

CRIME

EQUALITY IN It’s 2019. We’re all equal now, aren’t we? In the UK, rape is illegal, you’re allowed to be gay. Trans people can get their names legally changed and many bills have been introduced to protect minority rights in the workplace. Our applications are anonymous to protect us against bias and, well, we have had our second ever female prime minister?! It’s 2019, and people of colour are now allowed to wear the hair that grows out of their heads. We’re all equal right? Those snowflake millennials can stop crying now?

•

1988 - Section 28 (UK) is introduced under Thatcher which makes it illegal for teachers and authorities to talk to under 18’s about LGBT issues.

•

1990 - Data Protection Act was created to ‘control how personal or customer information is stored on computers and filing systems’.

•

1991 - A man named ‘R’ loses case in court after it is decided that marriage does not ‘constitute consent in all circumstances’, and marital rape is written explicitly in 2003 in the Sexual Offences Act.

•

Equalities Act 2010 (UK) brought together 16 different pieces of legislature into one single act that legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and wider society.

•

2003 - Section 28 is dismissed; Sexual Offences Act (includes gender identity and sexual orientation).

•

2013 - Gay Marriage is made legal.

•

2015 - Modern Slavery Act aimed to protect victims of trafficking and modern slavery.

•

2019 - Economic abuse to be included in domestic violence law.

Perhaps not. Reported rape convictions are less than 8%. Trans people are being brutalised in places like America and Brazil by state police and other authorities. Our applications are anonymous because we can’t trust employers to have unconscious bias against women, LGBT+ and BAME. Refugees in detention centres are being raped, tortured and brutalised. According to a new American report, black Americans were incarcerated in state prisons at an average rate of 5.1 times that of white Americans. Brunei has just enforced a law that legalises the stoning to death of LGBT+ people. But it’s okay as long as bakers get to refuse service to someone on the grounds of their homophobia, right? It’s okay as long as we can keep using people of colour as scapegoats to avoid our responsibility for upholding these governments? But to the privileged, equality feels like oppression. Here is a timeline of some major landmarks that have criminalised certain things, or decriminalised them, in the last 100 years in the UK: •

•

1965 Race Relations Act (UK) and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. 1967 - The UK sees the decriminalisation of gay and bi-sexual men (Fun fact: lesbians were never illegals because it wasn’t believed to be a sexual activity if there wasn’t a penis involved).

Has criminalising discrimination and hate worked? Well, hate crimes generally have decreased due to there being more initiatives, campaigns and criminal consequences for offenders. However, they’re far from eradicated. In April 2017-18, there was a rise of 17% in policereported incidents of hate crime. It’s undeniable that we tend to see spikes of hate crime during politically tumultuous periods, such as Brexit, General Elections, and controversial topics coming into the conversation such as gay marriage, separation of church and state, and foreign aid.

CRIME

THE LAW FullFact.org reports that in 2015-2016 and 2017-2018,

there were an estimated 184,000 incidents of hate crime a year, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales. This is 40% lower than the estimated levels between 2007-08 and 2008-09. They also note that 76% of the hate crimes reported to the police based on this survey were based on race, highlighting the time period of the EU Referendum. Outside of statistics, there are many lived experiences that people convey on social media about them being let down by police protection especially online, that civil legislation arguably is not accounting for and recognising.

and still facing discrimination and hate, including and What can we do other than criminalising offenders? We can educate ourselves, educate other people. Don’t take this article as gospel, because there are multiple sources that provide different numbers, answers and views. We should encourage discussion and research (trusted research, not internet trolls), and find ways to grow

In the same token, the law may outlaw things like hate crime across the board, as the UK has made progress in, but there’s still social sentiment that goes against these. Furthermore, it’s estimated in the same survey that 5 out of 6 victims (86%) didn’t report their experiences to the police. Additionally, the Office of National Statistics report that 20% of women and 4% of men have experienced some type of sexual assault since they were 16 years old in 2017. This could be read in several ways. We could say that the legal decriminalisation of hate crimes and discrimination has led to more reports, and also more heard and acted upon reports, and thus it looks like it has both increased and simultaneously not been acted upon (e.g. sexual assault and rape convictions). However, as we know from historical events, the law and society doesn’t always match up. The law may encourage certain hate crimes (as Brunei recently made legal), but the people of Brunei have widely condemned themselves.

CRIME

ourselves and each other. We also need to call more loudly on our governments to identify issues and react appropriately to these, such as the financial barriers trans people face with things like menstrual products, deed poll and surgeries, and the institutional racism and xenophobia within the workplace and educational institutions.

WORDS BY LAURA BARR

CRIME

Notoriety In The Media WORDS BY RACHEL MATHER Two wrongs don’t make a right. If you can’t say

anything good, say nothing. These are classic idioms that were frequently voiced in my house as my parents dutifully instilled the age-old narrative that turning the other cheek is better than returning a slap. There are times when these are hard lessons to live by and it takes strength to always act with such noble restraint. Yet these moral mantras are not just confined to childhood, as the principles can be transferred into the more serious warning that violence often begets violence. This sinister saying re-emerged recently to condemn media narratives that hyperbolise the actions of extremists. ‘He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist. But he will, when I speak, be nameless.’ These were the emotional words declared by New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Arden in the aftermath of the extremist right-wing terror attack on two mosques in Christchurch. She vowed to parliament and to the public that the name Brenton Tarrant would never again pass her lips because this would only serve to ‘lift his profile’ and advertise his views.

“Blanket bans are unhelpful when they create a mythical status that leaves the public unaware of the factors that exacerbated the assailant’s extremism.” Arden’s strident call for us all to follow her lead is based on the commonly held assumption that this will starve the perpetrator of the oxygen of publicity and therefore devalue his agenda. Furthermore, it’s

argued that performing such actions with media attention can increase support for the cause. Professor Michael Jetter of EAFIT University in Colombia noted that between 1970-2012 there was a substantial hike in terrorist attacks, reaching a peak of 8,441 in 2012. This rise has occurred alongside a rapid rise in social media and 24 hour news coverage, which extremist networks have gradually used to promote their message to a wider audience. It goes without saying that correlation is not causation. There are deeper motives that allure affiliates to extremism, but Jetter’s study did establish a link between headlines that sensationalised terror attacks and the number of follow-up incidents that this inspired. This seemingly proves the hypothesis that naming fanatics and giving a free media platform to their cause creates a cycle of inflamed rhetoric that enhances the danger of extremism. However, despite this lengthy justification for keeping quiet, there is also a valid argument that naming individuals is more helpful than shrouding them in mystery. In terms of terrorist attacks, it’s often the event itself that gains notoriety rather than the actors. I wonder how many readers could identify the 7/7 bombers, the Norwegian far-right terrorist from 2011 or the Manchester Arena attacker. I could not name any of them off the top of my head, but the images of a blown-up bus, bloodstained bodies and crying children are embedded in my memory. This is not to say that the attackers are not important to the news story but hiding their identity will not reduce the message they seek to spread or negate the lasting legacy of their actions. In fact there is a worrying trend to indicate it will do the opposite. Blanket bans are unhelpful when they create a CRIME

mythical status that leaves the public unaware of the factors that exacerbated the assailant’s extremism. This leads to vague statements that “our values”, “our freedoms” and “our children” are being violated and must be protected at all costs. This is a classic case of “othering” that implies those who act in a violent manner are fundamentally different to the rest of us. Whilst their inexcusable actions indicate that terrorists have a radically altered sense of justice, they were not preconditioned to think this way. They are not inherently evil beings born with hatred in their heart and a pre-existing capacity to kill. Therefore, logic dictates there must be causal factors that have driven extremism – social isolation, racism, Islamophobia, political objectives, religion and persecution, to name just a few. Understanding the incentives behind an individual is the most powerful way to prevent future attacks. In contrast, by failing to explore an attacker’s background, the public is left woefully misinformed about the triggers for terrorism, which can obstruct effective counter-extremism strategies being implemented.

In refusing to nail down the nuances of what incentivised the New Zealand attacker, Arden potentially created a space for myths to originate. Alternatively, by naming him and publicly addressing his individual motives, the government would have the opportunity to deconstruct the validity for his cause and reduce the force behind his ideology. This would enable the authorities and the public at large to initiate measures to prevent radical mindsets festering.

Ultimately, Arden’s proclamation was mostly a symbolic gesture made to unite a nation in grief and firmly establish that violence is unacceptable. I do not condemn Arden’s message; in fact I commend her for her incredible display of humanity and leadership in the aftermath of such tragedy. However, as the dust settles and emotions become a little less raw, it is important to acknowledge that silence won’t stop violence. Whether you decide to speak Tarrant’s name or not, what is vital is that the root causes of this catastrophe are not cast aside. If they are, the risk of aggressive extremism will only The gaps in public knowledge can also open up the increase. door to a flood of conspiracy theories, where people can warp the event to align with their own narrative.

CRIME

The Portrayal of Criminals WORDS BY CHARLOTTE COLOMBO IMAGE BY AVILA DIANA CHIDUME The relationship between the media and crime is complicated to say the least. Although crime is bound to happen whether or not the media choose to report it, what we can say for certain is that the media controls the portrayal of these crimes and offenders.

sinister. Stuart Hall, for example, argues that the “moral panic” surrounding muggers in the 1970s’ (specifically focusing on the race of the offenders) was something the media heavily exaggerated in order to draw attention away from government corruption.

The media holds an unrivalled power over us and the ultimate narrative. Our perceptions are at the mercy of what the media want it to be. The question is, how are our attitudes towards crime molded by the media, and what are the ultimate consequences of this?

If you want to question how applicable this theory is almost 50 years later, look no further than the reports of knife crime in London. A week doesn’t go by where I don’t scroll past headlines detailing the latest “bloodbath” in London. Each breaking news story is seemingly more graphic, involves more casualties and constantly reinforces this idea that nowhere in London is safe from teenagers lurking in dark corners to senselessly stab you. Although there is an evident problem surrounding knife crime and young people, it’s equally as evident that the media, in their reporting of this, are attempting to generate a “moral panic”. Whilst “mods and rockers” were cast as the “folk devils” at the centre of this moral crisis in the 1970s, this time around it’s troubled teenagers. All of whom are embroiled in gangs from the age of 11 and would murder each other based solely on their postcode or - as argued in recent reports - with no reason at all. They are seen as unpredictable, illogical actors who are violent for the sake of being violent. This in turn reinforces this notion of constant danger for Londoners.

One thing the media does very well in its reporting of crime is cast what sociologist, Stan Cohen, calls the “folk devil”. The “folk devil” is often at the centre of the narrative that the media constructs, and they are designed to be the big villain at the centre of crime reporting, leaving consumers living in fear of the criminal that the media has chosen to cast. According to Cohen, these aforementioned “folk devils” are often part of a particular social group that we are supposed to fear. When Cohen performed his study in the 1970s, he found that these “folk devils” were often part of a popular, yet violent, youth subculture at the time: “mods and rockers”. Apparently, when the media report on the deviant behaviour of these fearsome “folk devils”, this leads to a “moral panic”, which is a state of frenzy and intense fear amongst the public. This “moral panic”, which occurs as a result of the media sensationalising and embellishing reports of crime, is argued by sociologists to be something that goes beyond overly enthusiastic storytelling. It’s argued that these “moral panics” in crime reporting are actually intentionally manufactured by the media in order to detract the public’s attention from something more

Yet, if there is a moral panic, surely there is something deeper the media is trying to detract attention from. But what is it that they are trying so desperately hard to distract us from? As well as the clear disaster that is Brexit and the Pandora’s Box of issues that come from that, if we dig a bit deeper we can find ourselves questioning why young people are in a position where they rely on knife crime in the first place? Under the Tory government, support CRIME

for young people in all areas has been cut. Between 2010 and 2015 CAHMS, which focuses on the mental health of young people, saw its spending fall by £50mn, and although pledges have been made to increase spending over the last few years, there are still countless young people left stranded on waiting lists, missing out on vital mental health services. Could this be why they are turning to crime? Where is the money pledged to CAHMS actually going? These are all questions we should be asking, but instead we are swept up in this media frenzy of a knife crime epidemic. Meanwhile, funding for the police force has steadily decreased.

factors in favour of reinforcing this idea of senseless, uncontrollable violence. They have rarely placed criminals in context, and created a myth that society is absolved from blame. But this is not true. The root causes of crime are often social failings, and are related to poverty and welfare. Rather than attempting to blindside us from the issue, they should be leading the way for the public to acknowledge these factors and, from there, help to fight for real institutional change. This will provide a stepping stone towards finding a real solution to this problem rather than exaggerating the issue itself.

The media seems to conveniently overlook these CRIME

CRIME

Drug-Taking: A Victimless Crime? WORDS BY JORDAN TRUONG When a drug is ingested freely of one’s own accord, the only individual being harmed is the user themselves, right? The known effects of excessive alcohol (such as drink-driving) can provide a sobering rebuke. Nonetheless, drug legislation and criminal prosecution has proven to be an extremely grey area of the law. While most would agree that restricting the availability of potentially dangerous drugs (especially for young people) is justified, it’s less easy to understand why others must be banned alongside them, especially if some could have useful medical and therapeutic properties. Attitudes to cannabis, for instance, have softened across the world recently. In the UN’s established guidelines of the 1960-1970s, most countries have their own unique classification system for illegal drugs. The UK’s Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) sorts them into 3 categories with decreasing severities of punishment attached to their possession and/or supply: • • •

Class A= Cocaine, ecstasy (MDMA), LSD, heroin, opium/morphine, crystal meth Class B= Cannabis, amphetamines, codeine, ketamine Class C= Anabolic steroids, benzodiazepines (diazepam), khatT

The most dangerous Class A drugs have a life sentence and/or unlimited fine attached to their production and/or supply, with just possession alone giving 7 years in prison. These drugs are usually the most addictive, with the greatest (and most dangerous) effects on the body.

What is it about drugs that makes increasing numbers of people willing to risk their own health, prison or (in some countries) a death penalty to obtain them? Ecstasy (MDMA) Ecstasy and LSD are two extremely similar artificially synthesised recreational drugs made popular with the “Rave” dance culture of the 90s. They act by stimulating excessive release of both dopamine and serotonin in the brain. Both substances are neurotransmitters that relay chemical signals in the nervous system. Dopamine is associated with feelings of euphoria, bliss, motivation, and concentration that come with reward-motivated behaviour, while serotonin is commonly known as the “happy” chemical that likewise promotes feelings of happiness and well-being. These chemicals, combined with a mild hallucinogenic, can create intense visual and auditory distortions, “trips”, that can be extremely gratifying but also have very unpleasant comedown symptoms. Heroin Heroin is a synthetic variant of morphine, a powerful natural stimulant and anaesthetic derived from the opium poppy that can increase dopamine concentrations in the body by up to 200%. Heroin is much more potent than its parent drug, however, and enters the brain quicker when injected into the bloodstream. It brings a “rush” of intense euphoria and a subsequent “high” that users have described as being extremely pleasurable. Such properties make heroin extremely addictive, but the withdrawal symptoms are extremely unpleasant: nausea, stomach cramps, diarrhoea CRIME

coupled with intense cravings for the drug. Heroin addiction is extremely life-threatening, with regards to the effects of overdoses (which inhibit respiration), withdrawal symptoms, or the high infection risk with hepatitis or HIV/AIDS from sharing needles. Addicts require ever-increasing doses to satisfy their craving, and the dose that causes death is only slightly higher than the minimum amount required to give a “high”. Addiction can be treated through the substitute drug methadone. Similar in structure, it triggers the same brain opiate receptors, alleviating the craving for heroin without the “high”. Cocaine Derived from coca plant leaves, which primarily grow in the South American Andes. It works by preventing dopamine-release processes of the nervous system from switching “off ”, leading to an abnormal (up to 3x) activation of the brain’s reward pathways. The white cocaine sulphate powder is usually “sniffed” into the nose for rapid bloodstream absorption. Alternatively, the “crack cocaine” variant can be smoked or injected to give an even more rapid and intense “high”. Experiments on animals have shown that they too will rapidly learn to self-administer and continue to do so at the expense of all else. Crack cocaine addiction in humans leads to a deep depression after the “high” has ended, and addicts may seek their next dose to lift this condition by extreme means. Contrastingly, users of powdered cocaine usually dose more infrequently, and often run a lower risk of addiction. Investigations into the mechanisms behind cocaine’s effects have been used to create antidepressants with a similar mode of action, but milder and without risks CRIME

of dangerous addiction. The most famous example is Prozac by Eli Lilly pharmaceutical company. Cannabis/Marijuana The most widely used illegal drug is derived from the dried leaves and flowering heads of the cannabis plant. The plant’s primary psychoactive ingredient is the complex THC chemical. THC interacts with specific receptors in the brain that normally adjust sensitivity to pain and produces effects not unlike those of alcohol euphoria and an inability to hold a coherent conversation, followed by tiredness and sleep. Higher doses can distort one’s sense of time or generate hallucinations. Cannabis’s effects on pain mechanisms may also form the basis of its medical uses; in patients with multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s or Huntington’s, clinical trials have had success in treating any associated chronic pain, also bringing with it a stimulation in appetite that helps to alleviate weight loss. While evidence suggests that long-term cannabis use causes addiction, lung cancer and deficits in higher brain function, there are many who believe that the potential health benefits outweigh the risks enough for the drug to be legalised and regulated. Already, it’s been legalised in the Netherlands, Canada and some US states. UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid recently approved the prescription of medical cannabis.

CRIME

DNA Technology in Cold Cases New advances in science and technology have turned cold cases into closed cases, due to the incredible changes technology has made to policing in recent years. One of the most well known forensic techniques is DNA fingerprinting. But what is a person’s DNA fingerprint and how do we know if they match? An individual’s DNA consists of exons (which code for proteins) and introns (which are non-coding). The majority of the sequence within these introns is made of the same sequence of nucleotides. These short repeats are termed Short Tandem Repeats (STRs) and are what we look for in a DNA fingerprint, as everyone has a unique composition of different lengths of STRs. Using nuclease enzymes, we can cut the DNA at specific points to generate shorter strands, which will vary in length depending on the individual. This mixture of lengths can then be separated using a process known as gel electrophoresis. This exploits the naturally negative charge of DNA, by running samples of the cut DNA strands through a gel, which acts as a net, slowing larger pieces of DNA down. This results in a pattern of bands, where the smaller lengths of DNA have run further than the longer lengths. As everyone has different DNA fingerprints, a suspect’s DNA can be run against a sample acquired from the crime scene and the banding patterns compared. If they match, then well done - you’ve caught the perp!

together. The DNA is then cooled and primers attached at specific sites complementary to short base sequences. The Taq polymerase enzyme then builds a new DNA strand from the primer using free bases in the reaction mixture. This process doubles the number of DNA double strands, and is carried out multiple times to generate huge amounts of double stranded DNA.

However, in many cases, the amount of DNA found at a crime scene will be minimal, and likely insufficient quantities to run a DNA fingerprinting investigation. For this a Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is useful. This amplifies DNA exponentially. PCR works by exploiting another enzyme, Taq polymerase, which act as tiny molecular builders, extending a sample of DNA from a small starting block. As DNA is double stranded, high temperatures first break the bonds holding the two strands

Yet what happens if no DNA is on file? Well, luckily, STRs are inherited between generations with very minor mutations. Familial DNA fingerprinting has been used in recent years to solve cold cases. Take the case of Melanie Road, 17, raped and murdered in 1984. Police took DNA samples from the crime scene and froze them until the technology was around to analyse them. The DNA fingerprint of the killer was uploaded to the national DNA database in 1990, but received no matches. The trail had gone

“Over the years, many advances in science have enhanced the way that the police can fight crime”

CRIME

cold, until 24 years later. In 2014, a woman was arrested for domestic abuse and had her DNA fingerprints taken. This fingerprint matched very closely to that of the DNA taken from the crime scene in 1984. The case was reopened, and all the DNA fingerprints taken from male relatives. A match was found belonging to the woman’s father, Christopher Hampton. Hampton was convicted for a crime that seemed unsolvable, and the evidence both from blood and semen analysis was concrete. How can DNA analysis aid in other types of crime? Well, via analysis of either the mitochondrial DNA or the Y-chromosome. For instance, when confirming a dead body’s identity. A mitochondrial DNA analysis can be performed. This works in a similar way to STR fingerprinting. As the mitochondrial DNA is passed via the egg, it requires a female sample to be compared to their biological mother. So if the mother has reported the body missing, a sample of DNA from the body can be amplified and compared to that of the mother. If there are few discrepancies between the two, it can be confirmed that the body is that of the daughter. A limitation to this is it requires a maternal relationship to a daughter. So what if the body is that of a male? A similar process with the same logic behind it can be used by looking at relationship between the Y chromosomes of a father and his son, as there will be very little variation between the two samples. Both techniques can be used to confirm the identity of a missing person.

organisms growth and population sizes can tell you how many generations of fly have been there. The younger the maggot and the fewer the maggots, the shorter the time the body has been there, and this can give some idea as to when the murder was committed. Over the years, many advances in science have enhanced the way that the police can fight crime, as forensics give them answers to questions that would have previously been unanswerable. Forensics helps solve thousands of crimes every day and that’s down to the unique properties of the human genetic code.

WORDS BY JACK NASH

Forensic scientists utilise entomology (the study of insects), to also be able to tell how long a body has been there. This works by tracking the mini ecosystem of insects and their life cycles on a decomposing cadaver. Different species of insect feast on the flesh at different stages of the body decomposing. Thus, analysis of the age of the maggots at each stage of the CRIME

CRIME

Your Rights as a Student Tenant WORDS BY MOLLY JOYCE IMAGE BY HELENA HENRY The fact that students live in dirty, rundown houses has become a rite of passage, but it’s bad enough that we’re expected to live like this, we shouldn’t be accepting the fact that our landlords will take advantage of us too. They bank on us not knowing our rights and so let us live in unsafe conditions. Enough is enough, so I’ve compiled a list of your rights as a tenant to know when you’re being played. Whilst it’s the duty of the tenant to make sure they leave the property they are renting in the same condition as they found it, this doesn’t mean that if something breaks (not due to the tenant’s/tenant’s guests) that it’s the tenant’s duty to repair it. For example, if your oven stops working or the shower starts leaking, it’s the landlord’s responsibility to sort it out. If this is something minor then there isn’t a specific time frame they need to repair it in, although it should be sorted as soon as possible. However, if it’s something major that could be dangerous or is severely disrupting your tenancy then the landlord should aim to fix it within 24 hours. If you report a repair that needs doing and the landlord tells you it’s your responsibility (unless you or a guest of yours specifically broke it), they’re wrong. Here is a breakdown of things that are not your responsibility to fix as a tenant: • • • • • •

The property’s structure and exterior Basins, sinks, baths and other sanitary fittings including pipes and drains Heating and hot water Gas appliances, pipes, flues and ventilation Electrical wiring Any damage they cause by attempting repairs

CRIME

Your house has to be safe to live in, and your landlord is responsible for ensuring that is the case. This does mean that your house can be a bit rundown (I’m looking at you Portswood), but if you have any loose wires or electrical plugs these are your landlord’s responsibility to sort out. Every level should also have a fire alarm and a carbon monoxide alarm and these should be checked at least once a year by the landlord or letting agency. As the property is rented, you have to allow access to your landlord if they ask for it. So this means that they can come round and check certain things are working and you have to allow house viewings for future tenants. However, you legally must be given 24 hours notice. In second year, my landlord used to just turn up unannounced - which is a) illegal but also b) really scary if you’re in the shower and hear someone walking around your house (trust me). If your landlord suddenly turns up you’re within your rights to deny them access if they haven’t given you at least 24 hours notice. Also, letting agencies are quite sneaky at sending emails saying that you will have viewings “between 10-6 for the next 6 weeks”. To save the hassle of constantly waiting on them possibly popping by, you can be given an exact time and date. If your landlord wants to increase your rent, they must give you 6 months notice if you rent yearly, or a minimum of one month’s notice if you rent weekly or monthly. This means they can’t just decide to up your rent without telling you - and make sure any changes in tenancy agreements are made in writing so you have proof! Hopefully, this gives a little more clarity as to what you are entitled to as a tenant and also what is (and isn’t) expected of you.

CRIME

THE PLATE POLICE WORDS BY HANNAH WARD-GLENTON When we think about food crime, many of us consider pineapple on pizza, or adding milk before the tea bag, to be atrocities of the highest order - criminal in fact (in 2017, Iceland’s President even said he’d ban pineapple on pizza if he possessed the power). Joking aside, food crime is a serious issue that has a huge impact on what we consume on a day-to-day basis and can be life-threatening in some cases. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is the police force of the food world, responsible for making sure that what lands on our plates is safe for consumption. There are seven categories of food crime: theft, unlawful processing, misrepresentation, adulteration, waste diversion, document fraud, and substitution. The horse meat scandal of 2010 is perhaps the best-known case of adulteration to have hit Europe, with horse and pig DNA being found in low-cost frozen burgers and ready meals. Whilst most cases required lab testing in order to detect the equine meat, some products were easier to identify in that they actually contained microchips originally used to identify the horses. This crime was of a particularly large scale, as not only were a grand total of 4.5 million products affected, but those products were distributed to thirteen different countries, making it a Europe-wide scandal. French authorities believe that the company

responsible, Spanghero, made a profit of £430,000 from passing the meat off as beef but if proven guilty this year, they will face a prison sentence and a £1 million fine. The horse meat scandal dominated the news for weeks, and was a startling insight into how susceptible to manipulation the food supply chain can be. Both companies and consumers became more aware of the threat of food crime following the incident, but it’s still a huge problem in the UK. Other than consumers being left feeling queasy at the thought of what they had eaten, there are no known cases of illness as a result of the horse meat. However, more recent food crime cases could have proven to be fatal. Russell Hume, for example, was the meat supplier for Wetherspoons, Jamie Oliver’s restaurants, and Hilton hotels before the company went into administration in January 2018. FSA allegations that the company was not adhering to proper food hygiene standards drove away business and it was discovered that the company had been labelling their meats with incorrect use-by dates. This led to most companies discontinuing their trading with Russell Hume and also accounted for the mysterious lack of gammon, sirloin, and rump steaks during Wetherspoons’ weekly Steak Club in January 2018.

CRIME

According to Russell Hume, the FSA’s response was ‘out of all proportion’ and unjustly led to the failure of their company and hundreds of workers losing their jobs. It’s unsurprising that the FSA reacted so strongly to these findings, with the possible effects of consuming out-ofdate meat ranging from a sore stomach to serious cases of food poisoning. Again, this is a case that is not known to have caused any major harm, but it’s impossible to say what damage this misrepresentation may have led to had the FSA not intervened when they did. The FSA is rigorous in checking that food laws are being adhered to, and regularly issues product recalls if it’s believed that a product could be harmful to consumers. In April 2019, several big-name products were recalled due to being deemed unsafe for public consumption, including Greggs’ frozen Mini Sausage Rolls, which were suspected to contain pieces of plastic, and Ben & Jerry’s Chunky Monkey Non-Dairy Ice Cream, which contained undeclared nuts and soya. Whilst both of these cases are likely to have been honest mistakes somewhere in the food processing, the FSA’s noticing of these errors is pivotal in protecting public health. The correct labelling of food products has become a particularly hot topic following the tragic death of 15-year old Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, who ate a baguette from the sandwich chain Pret-a-Manger without knowing that it contained sesame, to which she was severely allergic.

CRIME

Despite its devastating consequences, Pret’s lack of allergen labelling was not considered to be a food crime. Sesame is one of the fourteen allergens which must be named on a product’s packaging, along with other ingredients such as nuts, milk, and cereals containing gluten. FSA regulations state that only pre-packaged foods must declare their contents and as Pret-A-Manger products are freshly made on the premises every day, there is no legal requirement necessitating the listing of sesame, or any other allergen, as an ingredient. Despite the lack of legal responsibility, Natasha’s death has prompted PretA-Manger to re-evaluate how they label their products. The company is currently investing millions of pounds to reform its packaging system, and aims to have every item labelled with all of its ingredients by the end of summer 2019. Despite the huge impact it can have on our health, food crime rarely makes it to the newspaper headlines, and when it does, it’s usually due to it already having had catastrophic consequences. This goes to show that whilst strict measures are in place regarding what we consume, there is still much to be done in order to make us fully aware of exactly what is in our food.

CRIME

Being Poor is Not a Crime! WORDS BY ALYSSA-CAROLINE BURNETTE ‘Do you know what it is to be poor? Not poor with

the arrogant poverty complained of by certain people with five or six thousand a year to live upon, and who swear they can barely manage to make both ends meet? Do you know what it is to be really poor—downright, cruelly, hideously poor, with a poverty that is graceless, sordid, and miserable?’ If this sounds a little archaic, you’re right—Marie Corelli penned this description of poverty in her 19th century novel The Sorrows of Satan, and—shameless literary plug— you should 100% read it. Because what Corelli is describing is different from the poverty you and I feel when our student loans run out. This is extreme poverty, the type which most students don’t even know about. Maybe at the end of the semester, we’ve run out of money, but we’re not perceived as those who have no money. Not to the point where someone would turn us away from Stag’s or The Bridge, or any of our other favourite haunts.

such questions as, “Why don’t you work harder? Why don’t you save?”, as if we’ve single-handedly discovered the solution to poverty. As such, we amplify our own positions of privilege because questions like these highlight our assumption that poverty is the result of individual choices. It’s easier to assume that poor people are poor because they chose to be, because of bad decisions, than it is to acknowledge the failings of a broken system. The truth is that we don’t exist on a level playing field. Financial independence, happiness, and stability are not within equal reach for all citizens. Poverty is also more than just not having money — it’s a cycle comprised of a variety of complex factors, a cycle that can steamroll those trapped within its endless loop. The same difficulties that affect non-impoverished people — medical bills, unexpected expenses, death, divorce to name a few — affect poor people as well and they only further the cycle of poverty.

Therein lies the primary problem: the fact that most discrimination against the poor originates with a baseline judgmental outlook. If we said it out loud, “In the UK, we think it’s okay to discriminate against poor people!”, no one would be comfortable uttering that phrase. Yet we do it all the time and in so doing, we contribute to the criminalisation of poverty. “But being poor isn’t a crime!” you might say, and you’re right. However, it’s criminalised by society and we constantly find loopholes to promote and exonerate our prejudice.

If you find yourself re-thinking your conceptualisation of poverty and wondering what you can do to break the cycle of social criminalisation, here’s what you can do to help: • Be an ally - Treat people like people, regardless of economic background, and make the effort to have a conversation and be kind.

We do it when we refuse to hire people because they look poor. We do it when we create policies that support denying service at shops or restaurants to anyone who looks like they’re too down on their luck. Ultimately, it’s important to identify the why behind our discrimination. Concerns about safety, cleanliness, and an establishment’s reputation are cited, but in so doing we stimulate the cycle of criminalisation.

•

Educate - Do your research and use factual information to debunk stereotypes of poverty.

•

Use your voice - You can help perpetuate the truth that being poor is not a crime.

Even while we uphold a system that keeps the poor from ever rising out of poverty, we continue to ask

CRIME

THANK YOU FOR CONTRIBUTING TO WESSEX SCENE DURING THE 2018/19 ACADEMIC YEAR!

CRIME

Gaddafi’s Killing: Heroism or War Crime? WORDS BY STEVEN DIBBEN What was life like in Gaddafi’s Libya? Was his killing a benefit to Libya, or a war crime? The refugee crisis presents horror after horror since Western “interventionism” destabilised Libya and other countries. Since Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in October 2011 after a lengthy bombing campaign, Isis rebels (among other factions) opposing Gaddafi’s leadership seized territory around areas like Sirte, now lawless and exploitable for discriminatory “cleansing”. Black Libyans have particularly suffered. For example, in Tawergha an entire town of 30,000 vanished after its takeover by NATO-backed NTC Misratan brigades in 2011. Human trafficking accounts herald disturbing stories of hot-iron branding and prostitution, EU countries complicit in the crisis by preventing refugees from entering safer countries and deporting them back to war zones. In 2016 the UN estimated that 2.44 million people required protection and humanitarian assistance due to the Libyan conflict. There’s evidence that Western media manipulated public discourse. For example, an Amnesty International investigation into when Gaddafi’s forces retook the town of Ajdabiya in February 2011 found no evidence that they attacked civilians as media outlets claimed, concluding that: ‘much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge’ Was then, Gaddafi’s murder, so brutally captured on video, justified? Was he right to utter the dying plea ‘What have I done to you?’, as though anything redeeming existed? Human rights organisations have catalogued atrocities committed during his rule. For example, in 1980 a policy of

assassinations of political dissidents abroad, termed “stray dogs”, was introduced and on 28-29 June 1996 more than 1,000 prisoners were shot dead by security forces in Abu Salim prison. There was also the 1988 Lockerbie plane crash which Gaddafi accepted responsibility for in 2003, though one of his son’s has claimed only to precipitate sanctions removal. Gaddafi’s second son Saif al-Islam has even said the government was responsible for some human rights failings. However, as referenced previously, Libya since 2011 has seen further human rights atrocities. During Gaddafi’s rule, the world’s largest irrigation project, the Great-Man Made River project, made water more easily accessible. Nationalised oil wealth meant Libyans enjoyed free healthcare, education, electricity and interest-free loans. Housing for Gaddafi was a human right, and women were freer to work and dress as they liked, subject to family constraints, than before. Based on ideas outlined in Gaddafi’s Green Book, a socialist system of Jamahiriya direct democracy allowed citizens to voice views directly via local committees. Numerous times Gaddafi’s proposals, like abolishing capital punishment, were rejected by popular vote and the opposite became legislation. Similarly, in 2009, Gaddafi’s proposal to effectively abolish central government altogether and give all oil proceeds directly to each family was rejected. In 2010, the UN index of human development ranked Libya as the world’s 53rd most advanced country. By 2015, it had slipped to 94th. In 2009, chairing the African Union, Gaddafi proposed selling Libyan oil in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold), over the US dollar. With gold and silver reserves estimated at around 143 tonnes, French President Sarkozy recognised in emails the threat posed to the French franc circulating in Africa. An imperialist war was launched against Libya in 2011, preventing the shift in the world economy’s balance of power through the gold dinar, where Africa would have become rich overnight. In my opinion, Gaddafi’s moment stands as one of the courageous attempts of the socialist 20th century to transform the world, and his departure during the iniquitous war against Libya truly was a war crime. CRIME

The Tokyo Trials WORDS BY MATT ALFREY Just over seventy years ago, Sir William Webb reluctantly passed a death sentence to the war-time Prime Minister of Japan: ‘Accused Hideki Tojo, on the counts of the indictment of which you have been convicted, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentences you to death by hanging’. Tojo, the man who instigated a devastating surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, bowed gracefully to Webb and walked out of the room.

cooperation. If Japan was to smoothly transition to a free and fair liberal democracy, some concessions would have to be elicited. That is, Japan would still enjoy many of its cultural and ceremonial practices at the expense of a new, codified constitution under the guidance of the US.

The verdict, however, posed many controversies which are seldom raised in contemporary international politics; Webb and his counterparts weren’t particularly remorseful in sentencing seven Japanese officials to their deaths between 1946 and 1948. Instead, the implications focused more on Japan’s future, specifically on the issue of nation-building and how it would interact with others on the international stage thereafter. Thus, what are the lessons we can learn from the Tokyo Trials, or international military tribunals in general? The former half of the 20th century was riddled by a fickle state of affairs between great power nations. The frequent changing of allegiances and the endemic kind of political bargaining primarily served as a tool for conquest and territorial expansion. Yet following the disastrous outcomes of the First World War, the interwar period was marked by the humiliation of the defeated – a key impetus which only bred more resentment among nations. During the Tokyo Trials, Allied governments acknowledged the fragile nature of regime change, given that the reprimanding Treaty of Versailles essentially permitted Germany to reassert its military might in the lead-up to the Second World War. Ironically, it was this very document that secretly conceded the German-owned province of Shandong not back to China, but to Japan. This was essentially a warrant for a Japanese invasion, which subsequently occurred during the 1930s. It was previous events like this that needed reflection and compromise. But it wasn’t easy. Sir William Webb spent many years during the Second World War investigating Japanese war atrocities and concluded that justice had to be dealt with all the way to the top. The Americans and British desisted. A joint decision was made which granted Emperor Hirohito immunity in exchange for his CRIME

With such a rich and embedded culture, the Allies had to treat Japan with care to facilitate its “national rebirth”. Yet the careful measures elicited by the United States totally embarked Japan on a newfound trajectory. That is, while Japan disavowed its once hawkish ways through Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, which would ‘forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation’, the US would provide a security umbrella against external threats. Decades worth of trust and embracement of westernisation have henceforth permitted Japan to slowly be granted more security autonomy, which is why current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his ilk are determined to controversially revise Article 9 to that of collective selfdefence. The underlying message here is that the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, from over seventy years ago, played a prudent role in pivoting Japan to the successful state it is today. Diplomacy and compromise served as an effective tool of upending a brutal, imperialistic regime to one of liberalism and democracy. These principles shouldn’t be forgotten for the times ahead.

CRIME

ABUSE IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA WORDS BY LAURA BARR The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) describe a set of standards it hopes to reach globally by 2020. Goal 5 is combating Gender Inequality, which includes ending all forms of discrimination, violence and subjugation for women and girls everywhere. Currently, the 10 countries with the highest rates of child marriages are found in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia, alongside also having the highest adolescent birth rate. FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is the cutting of a female’s genitals. In 2017, the UN reported that FGM affected every 1 in 5 young girls in Sub-Saharan Africa, with Ethiopia and Eritrea having a high number. A 2018 UK Home Office Report stated that sexual violence is prevalent in the regional areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and is highest in the southern and eastern provinces where conflict is taking place. In Ethiopia’s first-ever national data on violence against women released in 2016, 35% of 5,000 women aged 15-49 said they faced physical, sexual or emotional violence from an intimate partner. In Ethiopia, approximately 27 million people are living in poverty, women making up a large majority of this, and 75% of women were illiterate in 2003. Even though Ethiopia has ratified CEDAW (The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) in 1981, they have failed to ratify more recent protocols for protecting women with the UN, and there are still prevalent discriminatory practices, lack of access to resources and violence against women. In the Republic of Congo, they have also ratified CEDAW in 1981 but have similarly failed to ratify recent protocol upholding this. Even though their criminal code and laws outlaw violence and discrimination against women, they haven’t been effective in implementing this in society and many traditional stereotypes and ill treatment of women still continue. Gender-based violence in Sub-Saharan Africa is about more than sexual violence and circumcision, which as Egyptian feminist writer and physician Nawal ElSaadawi suggests, could be said merely to perpetuate a

further colonial view of the African and Arab world and isolating it from Europe, despite FGM, sexual violence and violence against women existing and affecting other women too. However, we must also look at the socioeconomic oppression that women face as a non-physical form of violence in Sub-Saharan Africa, and address it. As El-Saadawi states:

‘I disagree with those women in America and Europe who concentrate on issues such as female circumcision and depict them as proof of the unusual and barbaric oppression to which women are exposed only in African and Arab countries. I oppose all attempts to deal with such problems in isolation.’

There has been some progress with education for females, with there being 89 females for 100 boys enrolled in primary school in 2014. However, they don’t necessarily complete their education. For example in rural Ethiopia, children are 60 times more likely to drop out than urban children. This disproportionately affects females, where traditional stereotypes and expectations repress their rights to access education, condemning them to household and marriage labour instead. There are still major problems for women in Sub-Saharan Africa, and despite some progress via the SDGs and social enterprise to empower women through business, literacy and sexual autonomy, there is still a long way to go. Not much aid globally is used to tackle this issue and many people rely on the volunteer work of local NGOs, philanthropists and UN projects. If you would like to support the UN Women: Africa Project, or learn more, visit the UN Women: Africa website at ‘africa.unwomen.org’

CRIME

Curious Laws and Customs Around the World WORDS BY MEGAN HART When travelling around the world, it’s important to be aware of local laws and customs by checking travel advice before you go. Certain things that we do every day and see as completely normal in this country can actually be a criminal offence abroad, punishable by a fine or even a prison sentence. You don’t just encounter these differing laws when you travel far and wide, there are actually many things that you may not realise can get you in trouble in Europe. For example, in the last couple of months, flip flops, pumps and sandals have been banned for tourists who choose to walk the steep, winding trails of Italy’s beautiful Cinque Terre coastline. Ignoring this new rule could leave you with a fine of up to £2,500, which could well ruin your holiday! Another thing you might not have known is that in some parts of Spain it’s against the law to be in the street wearing only a bikini or swimming shorts/trunks. Being barechested has also been banned. You could be fined if you’re caught wearing swimwear on the seafront promenade or the adjacent streets, so check if this applies to your holiday destination, and think twice before you leave the beach to go and get an ice cream! In France, it’s worth noting that concealing your face in public places is illegal and is also punishable with a fine. This includes balaclavas, full veils and any other garment or mask that hides the face. If you travel out of Europe, you may meet laws that carry heftier punishments, and the crimes are often far more unusual. For example, not only is it illegal to chew gum in Singapore, but it’s also against the law to bring it into the country - who’d have thought?! That’s definitely one to remember if you’re someone who always has a packet of gum lurking at the bottom of your handbag! Another strange one is in Japan, where it’s illegal to bring some common medicines into the country, such as Vicks inhalers, medicines for allergies and sinus problems, cold and flu medication containing Pseudoephedrine and even some over-the-counter painkillers like those containing Codeine. In Thailand, a common destination for student travellers, fines or even prison sentences can be handed out to those who use, sell, or try to bring electronic cigarettes into the country. In many countries you might

CRIME

travel to for a relaxing summer holiday, such as Fiji, topless bathing is forbidden and you should cover shoulders and knees in rural villages. Rules like this are common in many countries if you travel further afield, particularly those in the Middle East, where you have to be particularly careful. For example, it’s important to know that cross-dressing is illegal in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

As interesting and comical as some of these laws and local customs are, it’s worth taking note of them to avoid complications on holiday. These are only a few of the more interesting ones, so make sure you’re checking travel advice every time you go abroad, as often ignorance is not considered to be an adequate excuse!

CRIME

Brits’ Behaviour Abroad WORDS BY JOE BRIODY

It comes as no surprise that the Brits have a bit of a reputation for behaving badly abroad. Although we don’t all behave antisocially when we’re on holiday, quite often this is well-deserved. Maybe the way we behave abroad is just a part of British culture, but it’s in danger of offending many other cultures too. Most of the stories involve alcohol, and it’s often said that sun, sea and sangria bring out the worst in the British. Perhaps because we work some of the longest hours in Europe, and the chances of drinking outdoors are so limited, we take full advantage of our two week breaks. But this shouldn’t be used as an excuse for bad behaviour. Stag and hen dos are often a large part of the problem. The cheap alcohol (and much greater chance of decent weather) mean that many prospective bridesmaids and grooms take their parties abroad the Foreign Office estimates that 70% of British stag and hen parties are now held overseas. This plays a large part in the negative image painted, and stories such as the man who was arrested in Riga, Latvia in 2008 for urinating on a statue, help form part of this negative image. More seriously, drunken behaviour on stag dos has also resulted in the deaths of at least 30 British men within the last decade. According to The Guardian, the most common causes of such deaths are alcohol poisoning and balcony falls. In fact, in 2015, one Ibizan hotel saw two British men die by falling from a balcony. Obviously alcohol can be a serious problem for Britons abroad. Besides the alcohol-related incidents, there are other reasons why the Brits get in trouble abroad. A lack of respect for culture is a leading one. In 2015 a British tourist, Eleanor Hawkins, was accused of causing one of Malaysia’s deadliest earthquakes

after stripping off on the top of Mount Kinabalu for a dare. She, and her two Canadian and Dutch friends, received backdated 3 day jail sentences and were each fined 5,000 Malaysian ringgit (£860) for their actions. There’s an air of arrogance with this sort of behaviour, and consequently it’s no surprise that 9 out of 10 Brits say they are embarrassed by fellow British citizens when abroad. Our arrogance is portrayed in our infamously bad language skills, and our lack of trying to speak some of the local lingo makes it even worse. Instead of brushing up on the basics, or using a phrase book, we tend to just repeat what we’re saying in English, but more slowly, or with exaggerated miming. There’s no doubt that English is now widely spoken around the world, but assuming that everyone speaks perfect English is a bit egotistical. In fact, I remember sat at a restaurant, overhearing a British family order an “una hamburger please”. A lack of appreciation for different cultures is also shown by fussy eaters. Research by travel search engine Kayak stated that 80% of questioned Brits refuse to try the local cuisine when abroad. Although these are not actual crimes, more cultural ignorance, they help form the bad reputation of British people abroad. Saying this, at times this ignorance has led to actual crime. The language barriers and this cultural disrespect may also mean more people end up being arrested. And as other countries potentially become increasingly annoyed with the British (*cough* Brexit, *cough*), this could get worse. However, maybe the idea of the embarrassing Brit has been a bit exaggerated, and we certainly don’t all behave this way. Interestingly, crime statistics don’t suggest that we are behaving as badly as our CRIME

reputation indicates. According to the Foreign Office, we are getting better. Data from 2013/14,showed that there had been a slight decrease in the number of Britons arrested abroad. Spain had the most cases, at 1,389, following by the USA (1,153) and UAE (261). When comparing this to the crime statistics in the UK, where in 2014/15 there were 592,000 cases of violent crimes caused by people under the influence of alcohol, crime abroad doesn’t seem so much of a problem. You could argue that fewer people go abroad, resulting in less crime, yet people from the UK make approximately 70 million trips abroad each year. This suggests that it’s only a small percentage of Brits who are involved in crime abroad.

This reputation may also be partly built from the sheer amount of stag and hen dos that take place abroad. These events often have a lot of alcohol, and this encourages disrespectful behaviour. In general, we don’t go abroad looking to start fights or cause grief amongst local people, but some might just get carried away. As a nation we should aim to be more respectful when on holiday and seek to remove this reputation of Brits behaving badly abroad.

Although the reputation for bad British behaviour abroad is well-deserved in terms of drunken behaviour and often a lack of understanding for different cultures, the British being a huge problem abroad is perhaps over-exaggerated.

CRIME

2019’S RACISM IN FOOTBALL WORDS BY ZACH SHARIF IMAGE BY CHARLOTTE WILLCOX The year is 1988. Liverpool and England hero John Barnes kicks away a banana skin. Football was a different time back then. Hooliganism was rife, safety was an afterthought and racial abuse was common. It reflected British society. Flash forward to 2019. Much progress has been made. But over 30 years later, racist abuse of footballers still persists. There has been a spike in recent years, but racism has never gone away. Just why is this prehistoric hatred still in football? This isn’t just a British problem. According to Kick It Out, 54% of football fans globally have witnessed racial abuse at a stadium. In fact, there are many footballing nations that are so much worse than Britain at tackling racial abuse. However, this is also in tandem with their ability to tackle abuse and hooliganism in general. Here, we seem to have a specific problem with racism. Much of Russian fandom harks back to the British 1970s’ tradition of hooliganism and violence. Modern-day Britain has minimised its football-related violence. But racism still persists. At the very top level of our game, monkey chants are aimed towards Raheem Sterling, a banana skin was hurled in front of Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, and chants of ‘Salah is a bomber’ preceded his wonder goal against Chelsea. At least to give some tiny amount of footballing justice, Sterling has just blitzed through the best season of his life, Aubameyang was celebrating after his penalty helped beat Spurs 4-2, and Salah responded to the racist chants that emerged on social media by striking the ball beautifully into the top corner. Worryingly, if this horrific abuse is taking place at the highest level, what on earth is going on in the lower leagues, away from the world’s eyes? If fans can dish out racist abuse in the best stadiums in the country, then it’s despairing to imagine what goes on further down the pyramid of English football. CRIME

How come this is still happening? Well, this isn’t a football problem. Football reflects society. Perhaps nowhere more than in the home of football. Raheem Sterling is widely praised for his action on this. Earlier this season, after suffering yet more racist abuse, he posted two pictures on Instagram. It highlighted the media’s role in perpetuating this racism. He posted two Daily Mail headlines that covered the story of footballers buying houses. For the white Phil Foden the headline read: ‘City starlet Phil Foden buys new £2mn home for his Mum’. For the black Tosin Adarabioyo the headline read ‘Young footballer on £25,000 a week buys £2.25 million mansion despite having never started a Premier League match’. It’s an example of the countless racist scrutiny black players face. Sterling was brave to post this - the media could have come after him even more. But the football media reacted well, and the guilt of the newspapers frightened them into balanced reporting. They now don’t harass Sterling like they used to - and I assume won’t harass many black players like they used to. Yet the nuances still persist. Whenever Paul Pogba is praised, I’ve heard countless times the references to his ‘pace’, ‘power’ and ‘physicality’. While he has all these things, rarely is his incredible skill, technique or vision the first thing commentators mention. This is important. Football is a microcosm of society. It hasn’t produced racism out of thin air. The media’s treatment of ethnic minorities goes far beyond football. Across society, politicians’ rhetoric is becoming increasingly more sinister, racist and callous. There’s a resurgence of the far right. Football should be the place to escape all this. But 2019’s racism is not just football’s problem.

CRIME