Under The Radar – 23 July

Heather Barnes on Unsplash

This week, we discuss:

1. Wolf-whistling to be criminalised

2. Ben & Jerry’s

3. The Alienation Game

Wolf-whistling to be criminalised

What happened?

Street harassment like wolf-whistling and the targeting of women in a sexually graphic or lewd way could become a crime under new government plans to protect the female population.

What does it mean?

Priti Patel’s pledge to make the public harassment of women and girls a criminal offence is a move in the right direction. However, the execution and follow-through is a far more salient issue and relies on institutions such as universities, schools, industry and law enforcement to make meaningful change, which is no easy feat.

It’s also questionable whether the legislation goes far enough. The new measures disregard that sexual harassment is not only isolated to male on female violence, and an urgent reconfiguration to include all sexual harassment victims – from male to trans – is needed.

But no matter how comprehensive the law is, powerful institutions that are often guilty of silencing accusations of harassment must be overhauled to create a society where victims believe their claims will be taken seriously and appropriately dealt with.

For example, despite being hotspots for sexual harassment and violence, a third of universities use ‘gagging’ clauses and NDAs to prevent students from speaking out about sexual assault on campuses. Meanwhile, recent accusations made by charity campaigners that police forces are often happy for rape and harassment victims to withdraw their cases as it lightens their burden only underlines how those with the power to enforce the new laws cannot be trusted to do so.

The material impact of such measures is yet to be seen, but without institutional change, this legislation will do little to combat sexual harassment and restore a real feeling of safety on the streets.

Ben & Jerry’s

What happened?

Ben & Jerry’s has announced that it will no longer sell its ice cream in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. The US company said that sales in the territories were “inconsistent with our values”.

What does it mean?

With Ben & Jerry’s long being known for its strongly-held political values, its decision to end ice cream sales in Israeli settlements is not out of character. But in recent years, as part of a growing trend, a chorus of other companies have also caught on to the merits of espousing clear stances on the biggest political and social issues of our time.

Within certain circles, this phenomenon has become known as ‘Woke Capitalism’, which was described by Helen Lewis in an article for The Atlantic last year as brands gravitating “toward low-cost, high-noise signals as a substitute for genuine reform, to ensure their survival.”

No doubt then that the boundaries between business and politics have never been more blurred, with no end in sight for a process that appears to be a long way from meeting its nadir.

Though if, and when, such a nadir does transpire, it will not be difficult to understand why: the company still sells its ice cream in China, which continues to hold roughly one million Uighurs in forced labour camps.

Seemingly though, running forced labour camps is not a practice Ben & Jerry’s considers to be inconsistent with their values.

The Alienation Game

What happened?

This week, Channel 4 aired an episode of its investigative programme Dispatches, which offered a rare insight into the UK’s family court system.

An Act of Parliament dictates that what happens in family courts must be kept secret, but the programme pushed the limits of this mandate to show how family courts are failing victims of domestic abuse.

What does it mean?

The episode revealed the alarmingly common practice of children being forcibly removed from one of their parents on charges of “parental alienation.”

The term was first coined by the American child psychiatrist Richard Gardner, who claimed that one parent can brainwash a child to distance it from the other parent. Gardner is a controversial figure, who has claimed that 90 percent of mothers are liars and that paedophilia is a “widespread and accepted practice”. His “science” has been discredited, with the US Supreme Court ruling that the term is based on “soft sciences” and therefore inadmissible in court; here in the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not recognise parental alienation as a legitimate clinical term.

And yet, in family courts, it is gaining traction. The episode highlighted painful cases in which the charge is brought against mothers who are trying to protect their children from an abusive father. These women are told that they cannot “alienate” the children from the perpetrator and that they must even actively promote contact between them or else risk the children being moved away.

Family courts have long been shrouded in mystery. By lifting the lid on this concerning phenomenon, Channel 4’s episode will hopefully put pressure on the Government to reform the system.

This Week’s Must Reads

1. The Republicans Have Already Given Biden What He Needs by Russel Berman for The Atlantic

2. Obscured by bias and opinion the news no longer feels like the news by Ben Cobley for the Critic

3. Bitcoin’s gold rush was always an illusion by Will Dunn for the New Statesman

Subscribe

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Company

Industry

Under The Radar – 16 July

Parker Coffman on Unsplash

This week, we discuss:

1. Strife within the Green Party

2. The controversies surrounding the Online Safety Bill

3. The new threats to national security

Strife within the Green Party

What happened?

This week former London Mayoral candidate Sian Berry quit as co-leader of the Green Party, citing a dispute within the party over trans rights. Her resignation follows that of her other co-leader, Jonathan Bartley, who announced he was stepping down earlier this month.

What does it mean?

The Greens have made steady electoral progress in recent years. The party had a record showing in the local elections earlier this May, making a net gain of 91 council seats to take its national total to a record 444. Their success means the party now has a role in running 18 councils, providing it with the opportunity to demonstrate its embryonic governing credentials.

Yet, in spite of their recent electoral successes, they have now become embroiled in the increasingly heated debate on trans rights in the UK. This dispute isn’t exclusive to them either, with Labour frequently finding itself dogged by internal strife between its trans and women’s rights activists.

The Green Party was principally founded to promote, and advance, environmentalism as a new mainstream ideological tenet of British politics. Labour’s eternal identity crisis, coupled with the growing salience of environmentalism across the political spectrum, suggests that they have never been dealt a better hand by which to access the levers of power in the UK.

Regardless of the Greens’ ripe potential for greater electoral success, whether they will rise to the occasion remains to be seen. At present, they appear more concerned with sacrificing their political ambitions on the altar of internal divisions and progressive ideological purity.

Seemingly not so dissimilar to Labour after all.

Online Safety Bill: Nicola Roberts Calls The Shots  

What happened?

Girls Aloud star Nicola Roberts criticised the government’s Online Safety Bill, arguing that it will fail to stop abusive users from re-joining social media platforms after being banned.

A victim of online harassment herself, the singer had been asked to champion the bill.

What does it mean?

The Online Safety Bill, which was two years in the making, put forward a number of proposals, including giving Ofcom the power to fine social media platforms up to 10% of their annual global turnover if they fail to protect their users from harmful content.

This aspect of the Bill has received extra attention in the past week with fall-out from the Euro 2020 final bringing the whole nation’s attention to the problem of online trolls. Since Sunday, there has been widespread uproar over tech companies’ lack of ability – or desire – to clamp down on racist and threatening posts against Rashford, Saka and Sancho.

Many have been pushing the Government to go further and make social media platforms require users to sign in with formal identification. Such a measure would address the problem that Roberts raised as abusers would no longer be able to hide behind new accounts under different names.

But online identification raises too many new problems to be the solution to all ills that people hope it will be. To name just a few: it will severely limit the freedom of people with marginalised identities to form safe communities online in which they can express themselves; it will discourage whistleblowers from reporting concerns without fear of retaliation; it will give tech companies even more power to collect data on citizens.

Bringing some semblance of order to the Wild West of the Internet is no enviable task but it’s imperative that the Government consider all likely consequences before the Online Safety Bill becomes law.

Threats old and new  

What happened?

MI5 Director General Ken McCallum provided an annual threat update on Wednesday and the organisation’s drive to learn, adapt, and strengthen the UK’s security. He also reflected on the withdrawal of UK troops from Afghanistan and the ongoing challenge of encryption.

What does it mean?

Since 2001, tackling terrorism abroad and preventing attacks at home has been the cornerstone of the UK’s national security strategy.

But MI5 is increasingly shifting focus to counter-intelligence operations from hostile states, warning the public to be vigilant.

Foreign states like Russian are not limiting themselves to attacks on former comrades like Sergei Skripal, but are sowing discord amongst the British public, corrupting public officials, and launching damaging cyber-attacks. China and Iran are similarly engaging in hostile activity, with MI5 reporting 10,000 cases of normal people being targeted by foreign agents.

But that’s not to say that the threat from terrorism has diminished. The withdrawal of Western troops from Afghanistan means the country is ripe for terrorist organisations to set up camps to train militants. Equally ISIS, although a shadow of the threat it once posed, is still trying to attack the UK and radicalise young people using slick online propaganda.

Tragically, there’s also the threat from within. As the country continues to grapple with the racism that plagued the England team’s heroic loss to Italy, there is growing concern that teenagers are being lured towards far-right extremism on the internet, as racism fuels a growing threat to security.

This Week’s Must Reads

1. ‘ESG investing: funds weigh sovereign debt profits against human rights’ by Laurence Fletcher and Tommy Stubbington for the Financial Times

2. ‘No cults, no politics, no ghouls: how China censors the video game world’ by Oliver Holmes for The Guardian

3. ‘Let’s talk about our addiction to cheap money’ by James Kirkup for The Times

4. ‘Net-zero transport dream demands an infrastructure revolution’ by Alan Tovey for The Telegraph

Subscribe

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Company

Industry

Under The Radar – 09 July

Saad Khonaifer on Unsplash

This week, we discuss:

1. Saudi Arabia and the UAE at loggerheads over oil production

2. The “staggeringly” high numbers of autistic people being drawn into terrorism

3. Controversial changes to the Official Secrets Act

Special Relationship on the rocks

What happened?

Oil prices hit a six-year high after the members of OPEC+ failed to agree on new oil production quotas. The United Arab Emirates scuppered agreement by rejecting Saudi Arabia’s proposed eight-month extension to output curbs, which were originally put in place to stabilise the market during the pandemic. The Emiratis want the freedom to pump out more oil, while the Saudis and the Russians are opposed.

What does it mean?

OPEC was simply a new forum for the ongoing dispute between the two Gulf nations. The chasm between the two leading members of the Gulf Cooperation Council is widening following the rare public disagreement between Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The relationship between the two Arab nations had been anchored by the personal bond between their Crown Princes and de facto leaders: Mohammed Bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed. MBS and MBZ had to date presented a united front, launching a Saudi/Emirati alliance to back pro-government forces in Yemen, boycotting Qatar and rooting out Islamic terrorism at home and abroad.

Cracks began to appear in the relationship when the UAE withdrew forces from Yemen, leaving Saudi Arabia to fight an unwinnable war. Meanwhile, the UAE was displeased at Saudi Arabia for warming its relations with Qatar, with the Saudis in turn displeased with the Emiratis for normalising their relations with Israel.

The Crown Princes’ competing visions are making reconciliation difficult. Both the Saudi and Emirati economies need foreign investment to diversify their oil-based economies, and MBS has made no secret of his attempts to make Riyadh the financial and trade capital of the Gulf, a crown currently worn by Dubai. Saudi Arabia recently warned foreign firms they could lose out on state contracts if they do not set up regional headquarters in the Kingdom and has amended rules on imports from free zones – a direct challenge to the UAE and its trade hubs.

With Saudi Arabia eating into capital that was once exclusively invested into the UAE, the Emiratis now need to boost oil production to fund their costly diversification projects. Hence they rejected the curb extension. The UAE may be flexing its muscles, but Saudi Arabia remains the regional hegemon, and they know it. The Emirates cannot defy the Kingdom indefinitely, especially if it permanently damages the alliance crucial to the peace and stability of the Gulf.

Radical changes in anti-radicalisation policies?

What happened?

A new report on the operation of terror laws in Britain noted the “staggeringly” high numbers of autistic people — including children – being drawn into terrorism.

The report’s author Jonathan Hall QC claimed that more scrutiny is needed of the links between autism and terrorist activity, saying “it is possible that we are at a point where our understanding of terrorism and the terrorist threat is going to have to shift once again”.

What does it mean?

Hall is wading into risky territory: as he himself notes, there is a very real and respectable fear that making any sort of link between autism and terrorism will lead to stigma. But he’s not wrong that our understanding of the terrorist threat may be due a reassessment. Referrals to the UK’s anti-radicalisation programmes suggest that counter-terrorist officials are dealing with a social as much as ideological problem.

The UK has two anti-radicalisation programmes: Prevent, which offers practical help to try to prevent individuals being drawn into extremism and Channel, for cases where someone is already on that path. In recent years, the number of people being referred to Prevent with mixed, unclear or uncertain (MUU) ideological beliefs has been rising steadily. In 2019-20, 51% of the 6,287 referrals to Prevent comprised individuals with MUU. Of those, 127 were adopted as Channel cases. This amounts to a 535% increase on 2018-19.

And there are increasingly more children getting involved: arrests for terrorism-related activity among the under-18s never rose above 5% of the total before 2020; nowadays, it’s between 10% and 16%.

The statistics reflect that the most dynamic category of terrorist activity does not come from Islamists but socially-isolated teenagers affected by neurodivergent conditions or poor mental health. The challenge is now to develop counter-terrorism legislation that appropriately responds to the risk while also providing necessary and sensitive support for those vulnerable youth.

Is freedom of the press taking a step backward?  

What happened?

As part of the British government’s proposed reforms to the Official Secrets Act 1989, journalists, spooks, and members of the public could face up to 14 years in prison if found guilty of unauthorised disclosures of sensitive official information. The government has also firmly rejected a recommendation made by the Law Commission for a public interest defence to be made available for anyone charged under the Act.

What does it mean?

The government consultation on Legislation to Counter State Threats (Hostile State Activity) highlighted the need for revamped legislation regarding unauthorised disclosures of official information due to the significant change in “the scale and potential impact” of such disclosures since the Official Secrets Act 1989 came into force. The government cites the development in communications technology (hey there, internet) as a catalyst for toughening up the laws.

There is no better example of the possible implications of a change to the sentencing than the recent incident in which classified Ministry of Defence documents were found left at a Kent bus stop and then extensively reported on by the BBC. Should the government’s proposed reforms come into force, it would mean both the person who ‘left’ the documents and those at the BBC involved in the reporting of them could face up to 14 years in jail if found guilty of an unauthorised breach.

Furthermore, due to the government’s rejection of the Law Commission’s recommendation for a Public Interest Defence, public servants and civilians would be deterred from reporting on “concerns of wrongdoing”. And while the government’s position is understandable, the deterioration of the public’s access to information during the pandemic indicates a worrying trend. Is the government tightening the law to prevent journalists from delivering critical reporting, whether on the pandemic or national security?

No matter how you look at it, it is hard to see how freedom of expression among the press and public is protected without a robust public interest defence, and with severe penalties for those brave enough to defy the rule of law.

This Week’s Must Reads

1. ‘Where is the Labour Party’s messiah?’ by George Chesterton for GQ

2. ‘The toppling of Saddam’s statue: how the US military made a myth’ by Alex von Tunzelmann for The Guardian

3. ‘Can Gareth Southgate deliver both victory and progressive patriotism?’ by Gideon Rachman for the Financial Times

4. ‘No Tory should want to privatise Channel Four’ by Ruth Davidson for The Telegraph

Subscribe

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Company

Industry