-
Brianna Ghey: Was Her Murder A Transphobic Hate Crime?
On Saturday the 11th February 2023, Brianna Ghey, a 16-year-old transgender girl from Warrington, Cheshire, was stabbed 28 times in the head, neck, back and chest in in North West England’s Culcheth Linear Park.
A boy and a girl, who were both aged 15 at the time, (now 16 but, because of their age they can’t be named, and are just being referred to as ‘Girl X’ and ‘Boy Y’), were charged with Brianna’s murder, and went on trial at Manchester Crown Court on Monday 27th November.
Why Brianna?
Girl X was intrigued by Brianna months before her death… In text messages recovered from her phone sent to Boy Y in December 2022, (2 months before Brianna’s murder), she wrote of how she was “obsessed over someone called Brianna.”
“I’m obsessed over someone I know but don’t have feelings for them … She’s called Brianna … I don’t know how to explain. Also she has a d — — lol.”
X told Y that Brianna was “trans” and that she “sounded just like a girl and looked really pretty”.
Boy Y replied that they had “different tastes” and asked: “Tell me what you feel when you interact with it?”
Girl X said she ‘got nervous and stuff but her heart felt normal.’
The court heard that Y responded: “I don’t think you’re necessarily in love but I think you’re more curious and intrigued by its unnatural nature.”
X agreed that she found Brianna “fascinating”, adding, “She’s really different”.
Despite the discriminatory language used by Boy Y towards Brianna, referring to her as ‘it’ and talking of her ‘unnatural nature’, there is no indication that Brianna’s murder was a hate crime committed on the sole basis of her being trans.
The discovery of a ‘hit list’ of four other targets who they were planning to kill, as well as text messages recovered from the defendants phones, and notes about serial killers found by police in Girl X’s bedroom, suggests that their obsession with death, violence and torture was a greater obsession than that of Brianna Ghey’s gender identity.
Not a transphobic hate crime necessarily then, the fact of the matter is that Girl X and Boy Y simply wanted to kill*, with Girl X’s preoccupation with Brianna seeing Brianna being the one to fall victim to their horrendous plans. It could’ve, though, been very different, had their initial plans not fallen through…
When their first intended target blocked Instagram messages from Girl X, the pair are said to have turned their attention to Brianna.
Boy Y replied saying: “Yeah, it’ll be easier and I want to see if it will scream like a man or a girl.”
The Downfall
The day after Brianna’s murder, Girl X sent a text message to Brianna which read, ‘Girl, is everything okay? Some teenage girl got killed in Linear Park it’s on news everywhere. And why did you ditch us for some random man from Manchester. Like wtf. That is so f***** up’ (an obvious attempt to set up a false defence).
Girl X then posted a tribute to Brianna on Snapchat, describing her as an “amazing friend” and that it was “so f****** sickening” what had happened.
Despite attempts to cover up their involvement, both defendants were arrested at their homes on the 12th February, just one day after Brianna was fatally attacked.
Following their arrest, police searching Girl X’s bedroom found a number of handwritten notes, including the plan to kill Brianna-
‘Saturday 11th February 2023. Victim: Brianna Ghey. I say code word to Boy Y. He stabs her in the back as I stab her in the stomach. Boy Y drags the body into the area. We both cover up the area with logs etc’, and another plan to kill which said:
“Give them alcohol with sleeping pills, slit throat, dismember body, place pieces in bin bags.”
What Happens Next?
In Monday’s trial, which is expected to go on for two weeks, both Girl X and Boy Y denied inflicting any injuries and participating in Brianna’s killing in any way, pleading not guilt, despite the overwhelmingly incriminating evidence being to the contrary.
They are blaming each other for Brianna’s murder.
But, whatever the motive for the attack, whether it is ruled as being the result of transphobia- a hate crime- or ‘just’ cold blooded murder, whoever delivered the fatal blow, one thing remains unwaveringly true:
A light went out in the world far too prematurely on that day in February 2023, and we need justice for that.
❤
My heart is with all those who knew and loved Brianna.
May justice be sought, and may Brianna rest in peace.
❤
-
Christmas & Capitalism: A Christmas Gift Buying Guide For The Anti-Capitalist
700–1000. That’s the average number of pounds we spend in the UK each year, per person, on Christmas presents (In the US, based on 2022 expenditure, the total amounts to $870 per person).
With a population of over 67 million people spending between £700-£1000 on average (let’s go for the median and say £850), that’s a staggering fifty-six billion nine hundred and fifty million pounds being spent every year on Christmas in the United Kingdom. Almost 57 billion pounds- eyewatering- being spent on things that, most of the time, we don’t even need, lining the, already multi-billionaire’s pockets, while we stress ourselves out buying wholly unnecessary* gifts.
*(Don’t tell me your sister needs that screaming goat toy)…
‘Look what I’ve got from Waitrose, organic sprouts!’
‘But none of us even like sprouts, Mum??’
‘I know but it’s Christmaaaas!’
It’s not just presents that we’re spending loads of money on, either, but food too…
Christmas Dinner = The World’s Most Expensive Sunday Dinner
We end up spending hundreds of pounds on a Christmas dinner, no different to the Sunday dinner we have literally every Sunday, but because it’s the 25th of December, instead of it costing the usual, what, £15 per person?, it costs £100 per person. Ridiculous. And, even if we don’t go out for Christmas dinner, even if we stay at home, make dinner ourselves, it’s still extortionate…
Whereas we’d usually do our weekly shop at Asda, we have to go to Waitrose, spending double, triple, quadruple our usual amount on ‘all the trimmings’, half of which will go uneaten anyway…
(Sprouts, I’m looking at you)…
’Tis The Season Of Giving Love, Not Pointless ‘Things.’
Now, I don’t want to sound ungrateful, or like a ‘killjoy’ here, but I also don’t want people who struggle to put food on the table on the average weekday to feel pressured to have to fork out several hundreds of pounds that they can’t afford to spend just because ‘it’s the season of giving.’
More than giving and receiving gifts, just take a moment to reflect on what Christmas is actually all about, traditionally… A religious festival with family- spending time with our loved one’s at its centre, not mass consumption.
It is our society, one which thrives off the back of capitalism, that has turned Christmas into what we think of it as today, with the traditional values that Christmas is centred on- appreciation and gratitude for all that we have, coming secondary, being replaced with greed and a sense of needing more, and thus, by right of passage, thinking that what we already have isn’t enough, that we are somehow lacking…
The proposed ‘solution’ to all our problems? The latest iPhone (it will only set you back a grand!), as ads have us believe, despite this, of course, being wholly untrue, for money can’t buy happiness.
( ^ ) Not just a cliched quote, but a fact.
‘Money Can’t Buy Happiness- Correct- But It Can (& Does) Buy UNhappiness.’
While money can’t buy happiness, incessantly spending money that we don’t have, taking loans out in some cases, not because we ‘need’ to, (again, does your sister really need that screaming goat toy)?, but because we feel as though we have to/that we have no choice for it’s the ‘done thing’, doing this can (and does) buy unhappiness, without a doubt.
Important To Note…
!! To be clear, I’m not proposing that you do a complete hiatus on Christmas this year, by the way… When Christmas, and the gift giving that Christmas is associated with, is so engrained in our culture, to sit by while everyone in your family is giving each other presents, empty handed, is unlikely to come across great for you…
The best outcome would see us all agreeing to limit gift giving to one gift per person, for example, agreeing to ‘not go overboard’/to only get things with a ‘practical’ purpose. But, if you don’t want to preach anti-capitalism while your family are getting in the festive spirit (it probably would be a slight mood killer, I can’t lie), then you could make an agreement with yourself, as is something that I have personally done.
Why I’m Buying ‘Experiences‘ This Year, Not ‘Things.’
This year, rather than buying ‘things’, I’m buying ‘experiences.’ Because, unlike a physical ‘thing’ that will probably just get put in a drawer somewhere and be forgotten, only to resurface a year later (and that’s being generous) dust covered and unused, experiences stay with us in the form of memories, with this, the formation of memories, being more in line with the actual purpose of Christmas- spending time with our loved ones. What’s more, if you’re buying experiences, then unless you’re sending your family/friends away on their own, then you’re probably going to be going with them, so really, you’re gifting yourself a present too- a win-win!
The Memories That Gifting Experiences Offers Is Worth One Hundred (+ Many, Many More Zero’s) Times The Ego Boost/Sense Of Fleeting Satisfaction That Being Given ‘Stuff’ Offers...
So, why not try gifting your loved ones fewer things to look at this year and more things to do, together. You don’t need to take a bank loan out to do this, you don’t need to get every member of your family front row tickets to see their favourite band live in concert.
Got a cinema near you? Why not look at what films are showing and book some tickets? Or create your own ‘movie night’, with a DVD and some popcorn. Often people will appreciate things like this more, things which you have genuinely thought about, things which allow you to spend time together, than they will an expensive bag, or the latest phone.
The Conclusive ‘Anti-Capitalist’ Gift Buying Guide…
So, as the countdown to Xmas 2023 is on (this time next month it will be Christmas Eve!), I encourage you all to:
- Gift ‘things’ (experiences) with meaning.
- Gift from the heart, not from the ‘oh-my-god-it’s-christmas-eve-and-i-still-haven’t-got-my-mum-anything-but-i-need-to-get-her-something-so-i’ll-just-grab-the-first-thing-i-see-oh-another-yankee-candle-yes-that-will-do’ head.
- But, if you are stuck on Christmas Eve searching for a last minute gift, (shit happens, life’s hectic), then try to give your custom to independent businesses where your money actually goes to the workers, rather than the likes of Amazon, multi-national corporations where your money goes to the billionaires who do nothing.
-
Equality VS Equity
People mistake equality for equity, thinking that, by giving everyone equal resources, we are on a level playing field. The fact is, though, that without equity, equality cannot exist.
Equality essentially means providing everyone with the same amount of resources regardless of whether everyone needs them. In other words, each person receives an equal share of resources despite what they already have, or don’t have.
Equity, on the other hand, means distributing resources based on what each person needs in order to adequately level the playing field.
An example…
You visit two schools to give students reading material on how to set up a business. The first school is a state school in a working-class town, the second is a private school in a predominantly middle-class area. Because the second school is fee-paying, it can be assumed that the students will have parents who are relatively ‘well off’, for they can afford to pay for their schooling when they could’ve received it for free, as the students in the state school did.
You give the students in the two schools identical reading material on how to set up a business, assuming that they must therefore now have an equal opportunity to become an entrepreneur. The fact is, however, that by virtue of being from a fee-paying school, the students from the private school will have significantly better chances of succeeding than the students in the state school. This is because they will be more likely to have the funding needed and the support needed to make it happen. In contrast, the students from the state school most likely will not have the funding needed to set up a business. They might have the knowledge that the reading material has equipped them with, but without having the money to do anything with that knowledge, they don’t have an equal opportunity to succeed…
Equality can only exist where equity exists.
We must remove the fence so that we can all see clearly.
-
How To Revolt Against Capitalism
Inequality Is Artificial
Everyone is born free and equal, but societies impose a sense of ownership over resources and divisions of labour, which causes conflict and social injustice.
Currently, we operate in a capitalist society within which the rich keep getting richer whilst the poor keep getting poorer, despite the poor contributing the most in terms of working long hours (just to line the pockets of the rich CEO’s)…
Under capitalism, we are nothing but wage slaves.
It’s not right that the bosses who arguably do the least amount of work- they sit in an office counting their money- get the chunk of the money earnt by the people who are actually working.
The only way for us to escape from this and to achieve the freedom that we should have over our lives, is for us to transition out of capitalism, into socialism.
We need an overhaul of capitalism
When four children in Africa died today, as they do every single day, from food shortages, meanwhile a CEO in London is popping the cork of his £35,000 champagne, clearly there’s something wrong with the system.
Socialism would see everyone having the same, thus ending world famine, and eradicating the wealth divide. With no social classes, everyone would be on an equal playing field, thus meaning that we all start off in life with equal chances, and all leave our life knowing that we have had a fair shot at it.
By way of having a socialist economy (within which capitalism is rejected, and production and wealth are collectively owned), and a democratic government (so as to prevent dictatorship), democratic socialism is the way forward to reclaiming our power.
Socialism VS Anarchism
For a more ‘extreme’ form of socialism, though, I would push for anarchism, something which the abolition of wage labour is central to…
With the abolition of social hierarchy and class distinctions that arise from unequal wealth distribution, the abolition of capitalism and money, and the collective production and distribution of wealth, in an anarchist society, complete freedom is given to each individual, meaning that people are free to engage in whatever activities they find most fulfilling. Each individual is therefore free to contribute to production and to satisfy their needs based on their own choice.
To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all. A capitalist economy denies us the time to live.
— Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism.
Wilde’s utopia is, as historian George Woodcock phrased it,
The society most favourable to the artist.
Freeing the individual from ‘wage slavery’- working long hours with no thanks and little pay (little pay because the people in charge get all the money) will allow for everyone to focus on what they actually want to do with their lives (make art- creativity!), not what they’re told they ‘have’ to do (i.e., work/be a wage slave) just so that they can afford to live…
Work isn’t the problem, the system is
Without cashiers in the supermarket, how would we get our food?
Without teachers in schools, how would we learn to read?
Without receptionists in doctors surgeries, how would we get better when we’re unwell?
Every job, no matter how proposedly ‘boring’, serves a purpose for which, without people doing the job, life would be so much harder.
The problem is not with the job, it’s with the system that we have around jobs.
The Problem Is Capitalism
Only when we transition out of capitalism and into socialism/anarchism whereby we can self-govern and choose how much we want to contribute to the economy, will will be free.
But, Anarchism?!
One argument against Anarchism though is that, ‘if governments are abolished, it won’t be long before one person decides to take over everything, thus seeing the country being governed by a dictatorship.’
Countries such as Russia under Putin, Germany under Hitler, North Korea under King John Um, they show us what happens when one person gets supreme ruling over a country.
As I allude to in this poem: in our efforts to come out ‘on top’, we will do whatever it takes, however immoral, to get there.
Power corrupts, and that’s a concern.
The argument that anarchy would not work because someone would take the position of leader though, although an understandable concern, is void. With the abolishment of capitalism and all the systems that see the many being exploited by the few, people wouldn’t feel such a pressing need to be in power, for, what would they be competing for?…
A free person doesn’t need to restrict the freedom of others.
Anarchism=Chaos?
Another argument that is frequently cited against anarchism is that, without any rules/laws, society will turn to chaos. Again, although an understandable concern, this too is void.
Firstly, because; the idea of there being no rules under anarchy is a myth– there are still rules, just no rulers. Instead of people in power making the rules, we all make the rules, as a collective.
And, secondly because, it’s not the fear of punishment that keeps us in line anyway, it’s not having the police there to intimidate us into being lawful that stops us from breaking the law, it’s having the presence of morals.
Not convinced? Just consider this…
If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police? If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist, for the most basic anarchist principle is self-organisation (NOT ‘chaos’, despite the stereotype)… We don’t need to be threatened with prosecution in order to treat each other with dignity and respect.
And, for a bigger consideration…
Assuming that you’re not a murderer, what stops you from killing someone? Is it the threat of being caught and sent to prison, or is it because you know that to take a life is immoral? Answering this for myself, I can say that it is for the latter reason. I have never had any inclination to kill, or to rape, or to steal, or to commit any heinous act. Even if we had no legislation to say that we couldn’t kill, I still wouldn’t do it. People know the difference between right and wrong, they don’t need the state to enforce it…
(But, even if they did, it doesn’t work anyway, for the police cannot prevent the irrational murderer from murdering, they can only punish them after. And, the fact that people do still commit crime shows that the law clearly doesn’t act as a big enough deterrent. If someone wants to commit a crime, they’ll do it, whether legislation exists against it or not. Surely the death penalty has taught us that)…
Our Existence Doesn’t Need To Be Regulated By The State
Anarchists reject the idea that crime is a part of human nature, and something that we need society to regulate. In fact, they argue that it is society itself which is to blame. As in the whole ‘nature vs nurture’ debate, they argue that no one is born evil, but that it is society which causes some people to act in ‘evil’ ways. The vast majority of people though, when faced with simple, clear ethical choices, choose good over bad, for morality is an inbuilt human trait.
And it is for this very reason why criminal psychologists exist- to uncover what led someone to take someone else’s life- because no one is born evil, it is circumstantial. And so, the argument is that, with no hierarchy- in an anarchist society- crime would be reduced as people would have no reason to commit crime, for;
A man with a full stomach doesn’t steal food.
A person in control of their life doesn’t turn to crime out of rage or anger.
What we call crime today is merely an unhealthy response to the big crime that is our society…
As 18th century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau famously said,
‘Man would be gentle and pure without the corruption of greed and inequality caused by the class system imposed by our society.’
So, what now?
You might agree with the anarchist ideology but, under our current society, that feels like a million miles away. So, what can you do now? Should you refrain from voting so as not to support the government, or should you vote for the ‘lesser of two evils?’
It can certainly feel disheartening when you have a mindset that there should be no government control, yet we are like puppets on a string, arguably being controlled by every aspect of the government, from who we’re told we can love (remember, being gay was a criminal offence as little as 50 years ago), to what we have to teach our children in school. When it comes round to voting then, it can be difficult knowing what to do. My opinion though?
Vote.
Photo by Oladimeji Odunsi on Unsplash Even if it does mean voting for the ‘lesser of two evils’, vote in a way that will cause the least harm to the most vulnerable members of society.
Vote for a government who are passionate about the things that you are passionate about. For me this is social justice, and under a Conservative government, well…they don’t fill me with much confidence at their ability to deliver. In the past week alone we’ve had Suella Braverman, home secretary of the UK, telling us that being homeless is a ‘lifestyle choice’, and that people who are marching in solidarity with Palestinians, to express their horror at the literal genocide that is taking place in Gaza, are partaking in ‘hate marches.’
Where is the compassion?
While I would rather have no government control, I’d also rather not run the risk of being governed by a supreme leader of the likes of King John Um. And so, the next best thing? Voting for a left wing party. Although I’m really disappointed with Sir Kier Starmer (the leader of the Labour party), for his lack of condemnation against Israel and the genocide they’re committing against thousands of innocent Palestinians, the values that the Labour party stand for generally do align with my own.
Get the party with the values that more closely align with your own in power.
Get one step closer to utopia.
-
How Can The Government Still Send Asylum Seekers To Rwanda?
Rwanda is unsafe for asylum seekers, supreme court rules
Yesterday (16/11), five supreme court judges at the British Supreme Court, the UK’s highest court, ruled that the Government’s Rwanda deportation policy- their plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda- is unlawful…
The policy, for which £140m of public money has already been spent, despite only one in three Briton’s being in support of it- this being in direct contrast to former Home Secretary Priti Patel who said the Labour Party and a ‘vocal minority’ are the only people celebrating the Supreme Court blocking the government’s Rwanda asylum seeker policy), was that certain people claiming asylum in the UK would not have their claims considered here, but would instead be put on a plane, against their will, and sent 4000 miles away to Rwanda, in order to claim asylum there.
First proposed by Boris Johnson back in April 2022, anyone is yet to be sent to Rwanda due to concerns surrounding the countries human rights record…
Advice provided by officials to ministers in 2021, during the process of selecting a partner country for the removal of asylum seekers from the UK, advised that Rwanda had a poor human rights record. Most human rights violations were said to be linked to criticism of the Rwandan government.
There were also said to be constraints on media freedom and political activities. The most serious incident occurred in 2018, when the Rwandan police fired live ammunition at refugees protesting over cuts to food rations, killing at least 12 people.
Further worries are that the government of Rwanda have an inadequate understanding of their obligations. This might see them processing claims wrong as they aren’t well educated on policies. In the case of this happening- if an asylum claim is wrongly rejected- then, having no agreements in place with other countries under which unsuccessful asylum seekers could be removed, the government of Rwanda will remove the person ‘to a country in which they have a right to reside’, with this usually being the country from which they have fled.
Despite Rwanda’s poor track record, plans were made to send Asylum seekers there anyway. However in June 2022, the first planned deportation was blocked by a last-minute injunction from the European Court of Human Rights, barring any removals until the conclusion of legal action in Britain.
The supreme courts conclusion?
‘There are substantial grounds for believing that the removal of the claimants to Rwanda would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment. It was accordingly correct to hold that the Secretary of State’s policy is unlawful. The Secretary of State’s appeal is therefore dismissed.’
So, what does this mean for asylum seekers? Will their claims be processed here, considering that the original plan, to send them to Rwanda, is against the law?
Unfortunately not.
While the ruling will prevent the UK government from lawfully removing anyone to Rwanda, as Deputy Conservative chair Lee Anderson has openly called for, the government can simply ‘ignore the law and send them anyway’…
Dozens of Tory MPs have called for Sunak to draw up plans to leave the European convention on human rights, something which came into effect in 1953 to ensure that governments could not dehumanise and abuse individuals’ rights. The very fact that the conservatives will have to leave this in order to proceed with their plan shows that what they are doing is dehumanising and will abuse human rights, but, apparently, they don’t care. For, Rishi Sunak himself, Britain’s Prime Minister, has said that he is looking to change the law, imposing emergency legislation that will ‘confirm‘ that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers (even though it quite clearly isn’t, as the UK’s highest court has confirmed), preventing the plan from being blocked again so that it can still go ahead… In a news conference after the ruling, Sunak insisted ‘flights will be heading off in the spring as planned’.
Dictatorship?
All of this got me questioning what the point in even having the case brought in front of a supreme court was if they had every intention of doing it anyway. It also got me thinking about law itself. When one person, the Prime Minister, has the power to break international laws and impose his own laws as he so chooses, can no one else see the scary parallels that this has with a dictatorship? Where is the line drawn?
More than party politics
As a scheme which has been central to Sunak’s immigration policy, and with the upcoming election due which the conservatives are predicted to lose, as a party, the conservatives are grasping at straws, knowing that they need to do something drastic in order to keep their supporters on side. But, this is more than ‘party politics.’ This is about human rights, something which, under a Tory government, the UK seems hell-bent on ignoring…
If Rishi Sunak does go against the high court ruling and asylum seekers are deported to Rwanda anyway, it will be a very dark day for humanity.
-
Being Pro-Palestine Does Not Equate To Being Anti-Semitic
The US has warned the Israeli government not to reoccupy Gaza. What will happen if they do, as is clearly their plan? Nothing. They, we, will do nothing, as we have been doing [nothing], siding with the oppressor, for decades.
People who have condemned the oppressor, such as ex labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, have been publicly condemned for doing so, labelled as being ‘anti-semitic.’
‘One may oppose Israeli policy, resist Zionism, or criticise worldwide Jewish support of Israel without being anti‐Semitic.’
What I am questioning is why, when Corbyn expressed his support for Palestine was he deemed ‘anti semitic’, but when Kier Starmer, Rishi Sunak, Joe Biden, express their support for Israel (who have already killed 10,000 Palestinian’s) are they not deemed to be Islamophobic?
Kier Starmer, current Labour leader (& a former human rights lawyer, by the way), has been the source of much controversy recently surrounding his comments last month on Israel’s ‘right to withhold electricity and water from civilians in Gaza’, and his ongoing refusal to back a ceasefire in Palestine, calling instead for a ‘humanitarian pause.’
Starmer has been claiming that Hamas killed Israelis because they were Jews, which is a dangerous narrative to push.
What’s happening in the Middle East isn’t a religious issue, it’s a human rights issue. It’s about standing up against evil and exploitation.
The blockade of Gaza since 2007 has resulted in almost two million people living in what is widely described as the “world’s largest open air prison”.
Whether right or wrong, Hamas killed Israelis because, when Palestinians have been demanding freedom for decades and no one has been listening, what choice did they have but to do something drastic?
Peace talks failed, so what else was there to do?
Hamas and Palestinians as a whole are people who have been let down by a world that fails to secure their rights. The conflict is not about Palestinians being against Jews, it’s about Palestinians being against having their human rights stripped from them.
So, who are the real terrorists?
-
Roe V Wade: The Overturning Of The Right To Abortion & What This Means For Women
Abortion was made legal across the US after a landmark legal ruling in 1973, often referred to as the Roe v Wade case, recognised that the decision whether to continue or end a pregnancy belongs to the individual, not the government.
Following the ruling, for the first time, reproductive decision-making (i.e., the right to an abortion) were placed alongside other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Photo by Karolina Grabowska on Pexels.com Until…
Despite the majority (61%) of Americans holding the opinion that abortion should be legal, horrifyingly, last year (June 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly half a century, no longer exists. Individual states are now able to ban the procedure again, with half of the states in the US expected to do just that, to either outlaw, or severely restrict, abortion.
As a result, one in three women now live in states where abortion is not accessible.
The court decision means that young women today will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers.
‘From the very moment of fertilisation, a woman has no rights to speak of. A state can force her to bring a pregnancy to term even at the steepest costs.’
The idea that a woman could be raped, the biggest violation in my opinion, for it is something that you can’t get away from- you have to live inside the crime scene that is your body every single day- and be forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy, a constant reminder of the way her autonomy was taken from her, and have her rapists baby, is disgusting. And yet, that is what the overturning of Roe V Wade is going to see happening to women. all the time.
Abortions Won’t Become ‘Fewer’, They Will Just Become Riskier…
An important consideration; as is the case when anything gets criminalised, people will still have abortions, they will just go ‘underground.’
According to the Guttmacher Institute, in the years before abortion was legalised, there were over one million illegal abortions performed in the US annually. After Roe V Wade, that number remained at around one million, performed legally.
So, as you can see, abortions, whether legal or illegal, will still take place, the only difference being that those which are done illegally are unregulated, therefore putting women at much greater risk, not just physically, but mentally, too.
Where Is Our Humanity?
It’s disgusting that, as women, we are having our rights, the freedom to do what we want to do with our bodies, taken away. I fundamentally believe that no one should have to justify their reason for abortion; simply wanting to no longer be pregnant is enough of a reason. Whether through being raped, or through our choice to not use contraception, to ‘sleep around’ (because, that is our choice too, we can do that if we want to), we should never be denied the right to an abortion. Ever.
As was put forward in the original case by Roe;
‘The right to an abortion is absolute — a person is entitled to end a pregnancy at any time, for any reason, in any way they choose.’
Close To Home
Just imagine if it happened to you. If you’re a woman, then this is probably a fairly easy thing to do, for we run that risk. Unlike men who, if they get a woman pregnant, can walk away, turning a blind eye to the situation, women can’t do that, because it is their body within which the pregnancy exists. They have a human growing inside of them. They have no where to ‘walk away’ to.
If you’re a man, then just use your imagination…
The scenario:
You find out that you’re pregnant, a baby is the last thing you want at this time, but, you can’t do anything about it. You have no choice but to have that baby. 9 months of living hell through pregnancy only to have the baby you didn’t want and be left with a choice- either keep the baby and spend the next 18 years essentially ‘bound down’ by your responsibilities to look after your child, or give the baby away, and spend the rest of your life being judged for doing so, your forever changed body a constant reminder of what you had to go through. Sounds awful, right? That’s the sad reality that so many women are going to be facing since the overturning of Roe V Wade.
What Next?
The overturning of Roe V Wade is a grave violation of our human rights and, I worry about what this means for women’s rights and the rights of people living in the world today in general…
When we are going backwards, I can’t help but question, what’s going to come next?…
Will contraception be outlawed?
Same sex marriage?
In accepting the abolition of one human right, are we not welcoming the abolition of them all?
-
Were The Nazi’s Socialists?
‘You do realise that Nazi Germany was all about socialism? Which leads me to believe that you are either brainwashed, unintelligent, or have a political position of power??? Pick one…’
What Is Socialism?
The basic meaning of socialism is an economic system in which ‘means of production and exchange (businesses) are owned and regulated by the community.’ It constitutes a set of beliefs that states that all people are equal and should share equally in a country’s money.
‘Socialists’ then are simply people who hold such a set of beliefs whereby the need for equality is what they base their moral compass on.
Was Hitler A Socialist?
Hitler was not a socialist, he was a far right extremist dictator, and Nazi Germany was the utopia he created under the false pretence of socialism- false because, it was as far away from socialism as something could possibly be.
How can someone who believes that Jews are inferior by virtue of their race, be a socialist?
Socialists deplore hierarchy and exploitation, something which the Nazi Party was founded on (Hitler practiced racist genocide)…
How can someone who holds an anti-communist ideology, be a socialist?
Instead of controlling the means of production or redistributing wealth to build a utopian society, which is what socialism is actually about, the Nazis focused on safeguarding a social and racial hierarchy, whilst using propaganda* claiming to be socialist in a bid to appeal to the working class…
*(Propaganda which Hitler swiftly discarded once he achieved power).
The reality is that Hitler’s agenda was not equal in the slightest, but entirely focused on racism and antisemitism. Even the Holocaust was related to economic considerations. How so? Because, in Nazi ideology, Jews were seen as ‘the ultimate obstacle to capitalism.’
Furthermore, Jews were also considered ‘the backbone of Marxism’ (Hitler claimed that 75% of all Communists were Jews), and the Nazis construed Marxism (social democracy and the protection of basic workers’ rights) as an essentially Jewish conspiracy against the capitalist economy — and thus against the natural order… This consideration was evident in Mein Kampf, Hitler’s autobiography, in which he stated that his antisemitic world view was finally formed the moment he realised that, ‘the Jews were the masterminds of social democracy.’
Such distaste towards democracy saw Hitler executing socialists and communists en masse.
The Communist Party and Social Democratic Party of Germany were banned in 1933. Many SPD members were arrested (in 1936, more than 11,000 Germans were arrested for ‘illegal socialist activity’), sent to concentration camps, or exiled. The first concentration camp in Dachau, built-in 1933, held the Nazi’s opponents- socialists and leftists- exclusively.
Source Still think the Nazi’s were a socialist party?…
-
Homelessness Is Not A Lifestyle Choice
Yesterday morning (04/11), Suella Braverman, home secretary of the United Kingdom was the source behind, yet another controversy, this time surrounding homeless people…
Taking to X, formerly Twitter, Braverman branded sleeping rough as a ‘lifestyle choice.’ As if this wasn’t bad enough, creating a scapegoat out of the most vulnerable in society, she went one step further by blaming the brunt of the problem on ‘individuals from abroad.’
Suella Braverman On Homelessness:
‘We will always support those who are genuinely* homeless. But we cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice.’
*(By ‘genuinely homeless’, does she mean ‘British’?)
In the tweet which has been widely critiqued on social media, Braverman outlined how she plans to crack down on the pitching of tents in urban areas, and went on to describe the growing numbers of rough sleepers on Britain’s high streets as ‘antisocial behaviour.’
‘What I want to stop, and what the law-abiding majority wants us to stop, is those who cause nuisance and distress* to other people by pitching tents in public spaces, aggressively begging, stealing, taking drugs, littering, and blighting our communities.’
*(Oh the irony… She wants to stop people causing ‘nuisance and distress’ to other people, and yet the Tories are the biggest cause of nuisance and distress in British society. Who’s going to stop them?!)
The fact of the matter is that the increase in homelessness has not come about because people are choosing to be homeless- despite what Braverman says, being homeless is NOT a lifestyle choice- it’s come about due to the cost of living crisis (a crisis whose sole responsibility lies in our government), meaning that people simply cannot afford anywhere to live…
With the cost of living crisis being at an all-time high, people can’t afford to pay their rent, and so evictions are rising, therefore forcing people onto the streets.
‘Even by this government’s standards, this is disgraceful. Imagine looking at the housing and homelessness crisis you’ve presided over and thinking, ‘let’s take away their tents’.
– Lisa Nandy, Labour frontbencher
Just like she did with asylum seekers- ‘fearing discrimination for being gay or a woman should not be enough to qualify for refugee protection’– Suella Braverman is, yet again, creating a scapegoat out of the most vulnerable members of society.
Give Suella Braverman a tent and force her into homelessness for a week, and let’s see, upon returning to the comfort of her £1.2 million family home, if she still believes that people would ‘choose’ to live like this…
-
In Conversation With Clementine Morrigan: Writing For Social Justice
Clementine Morrigan is a socialist-feminist writer.
As well as writing essays and zines around the themes of culture, politics, sexuality, and trauma, Clementine also has a podcast which she co-hosts with her partner, Jay Lesoleil. In the podcast, appropriately named ‘Fucking Cancelled’, they challenge cancel culture, identitarianism, and social justice orthodoxy in order to ‘build an effective and organised Left based in solidarity.’
A passionate believer in independent media and being unafraid to write about the controversial, Clementine has built up a large following on social media off the back of her unapologetic, fearless style of writing.
An absolute powerhouse, I was so excited to have the opportunity to chat with her on all things writing and politics.
Here is some of our conversation.🖤
Clementine! Hello! Could you introduce yourself for anyone who isn’t already familiar with your work?
Hi!
My name is Clementine Morrigan.
I use she or they.
I am a writer, podcaster, leftist, and public intellectual.
I started writing as a kid. I have pretty much always been telling stories in some form even before I could write. I made my first zine at the age of 13.
What is it about zines that you favour over more ‘traditional’ books?
I started writing zines because they were a lifeline.
Anyone can make them and you don’t have to wait for someone else’s permission.
What inspired you to start writing about such deep topics? Was it an active decision to write so unapologetically?
From the beginning, I’ve always been writing zines about queer sexuality, trauma, and other topics that felt important to me. I have found that writing plays a very important role in my recovery.
In zines I found an unapologetic culture where you could be messy and honest and say things you weren’t allowed to say elsewhere. I really embody that ethos in my work to this day.
I write because I need to.
I need to tell the truth and make sense out of my experiences.
How much does being queer influence what you write about?
I came out of the closet in 2002 when I was 15. I experienced a lot of homophobic harassment. I moved to Toronto and went to a small alternative school for queers.
I write a lot about being queer. I also think being queer shapes my thinking about a lot of things.
Queer culture is highly social justice oriented. I think this comes out of our long history of resisting oppressive forces so we could be who we are.
I don’t exist inside heteronormativity and so I don’t have the assumptions that come along with heteronormativity.
Do you have any advice for people who want to share their art with the world, but are worried about being ‘cancelled?’
Unfortunately we have gone from believing in free expression to policing people’s thoughts and demanding conformity.
It sucks to live in fear, being dishonest about who you are and what you believe.
There are many people who oppose cancel culture and being honest is the best way to find people who share your principles and boundaries.
The quote and name of one of your zines ‘Fuck the police means we don’t act like cops to each other’ packs so much into such a short statement. Did you have any idea, when writing it, that it was going to ‘blow up’ as it did?
I had no idea, but I was scared to write it.
Before it was a zine it was just a one sentence post on Instagram. Someone I love was being cancelled by an ex and I was mad and felt helpless. I didn’t know what to do, but I knew I could express myself through writing. At first the post was very popular and went viral, then I started getting called out for it. Later, it became a whole zine.
Do you have any writing ‘rituals?’ Any places you go to for inspiration?
Walking around,
thinking my thoughts,
feeling my feelings.
Any more projects on the way?
Always! I’m about to release a perzine called riverbed. We’ll see what happens after that!
Final question, (and it’s a big one), favourite book of all time?
This is how you lose the time war.
To stay up to date with Clementine’s writing, you can subscribe to their website: ClementineMorrigan.com (it’s free). You can also access her podcast and zines via the link above.
& if you don’t already, I highly recommend following Clementine on Instagram. Her account is linked here.
Portfolio of Hope 