A 72-year-old British man was convicted on Monday of importing a child sex doll that was “anatomically detailed and correct,” according to Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA). Over the past year or so, British authorities have been dealing with an increasing number of such cases, which are difficult to prosecute under British law, as it’s not illegal to own a child sex doll. But importing one could amount to a criminal offense under the 1959 Obscene Publication Act.

Judge Simon James ruled on David Turner’s case at the Canterbury Crown Courthouse in Kent, a city southeast of London. Turner was found guilty of importing a 3-foot-11-inch doll from China. He also bought clothes for the doll, and owned others he used for sexual purposes.

At Turner’s home in Kent, police uncovered more than 34,000 images of children ages three to 16, along with two other child dolls, and 29 stories that “described sexual abuse of children,” according to the NCA. Turner was arrested last November, when customs officers at Stansted Airport seized a doll, which was mislabeled as a mannequin.

The importation of child sex dolls is an emerging trend in the UK. Since March 2016, the Border Force has seized 123 dolls. Those previously charged in similar cases pleaded guilty to importing obscene objects, but Turner asked the judge whether or not using the doll for sexual purposes was considered “indecent or obscene in law.” In a first, the judge ruled that it was. Turner’s sentencing is scheduled for September 8.

“Our front line officers and intelligence teams are vigilant to emerging criminal trends such as the importation of obscene dolls,” Dan Scully, deputy director of the Border Force’s Intelligence Operations said in a statement. “Through our work with law enforcement partners like the NCA, we are committed to preventing the smuggling of obscene articles and bringing those responsible to justice.”

Hazel Stewart, operations manager of the NCA’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection wing, said “Importers of such obscene items should expect to have law enforcement closing in on them.”

Some doubt that child sex dolls can be a therapeutic tool for would-be abusers. “There is no evidence to support the idea that the use of so-called child sex dolls helps prevent potential abusers from committing contact offenses against real children,” Jon Brown, head of development at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said in a statement. “And in fact there is a risk that those using these child sex dolls or realistic props could become desensitized and their behavior becomes normalized to them, so that they go on to harm children themselves.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 72-Year-Old British Man Convicted of Importing Child Sex Doll appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, Britain’s Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs released documents detailing the country’s plan to reduce air pollution over the next several years. Most notably, the United Kingdom will ban the sale of new petrol or diesel-powered cars and vans by 2040.

In addition to the ban on gas vehicles, the government reiterated its desire to fully implement its recently-announced £2.7 billion investments into low-emission taxis, car-rental programs, roads, and green bus retrofits.

In its plan, the government pledges to be the “the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it.”

Europe’s Green Trend

Britain’s announcement comes at a time when air quality levels are increasingly at the forefront of policies across Europe, as the continent tries to grapple with the increased effects of climate change.

“It’s important we all gear up for a significant change, which deals not just with the problems to health caused by emissions but the broader problems caused in terms of accelerating climate change,” Britain’s Environment Secretary Michael Gove said.

New diesel and petrol cars are to be banned from 2040 as part of a new strategy to tackle air pollution https://t.co/Bmj3JSq6BN pic.twitter.com/MEjFNoqO9R

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) July 26, 2017

Britain’s new policy mimics France’s ban on gas and diesel cars by 2040, which was announced last month after the country struggled with dense smog and pollution in its larger urban areas. It’s also inspiring some Irish politicians to advocate for a similar commitment.

“If Ireland doesn’t change it’s in the danger of becoming a dumping ground. We need to set a date and work from it, without targets we are rudderless,” said Ireland’s Green Party Councillor Ciaran Cuffe.

Too Little, Too Late?

Some politicians, including former Labour Leader Ed Miliband, are saying that this announcement is largely meant to act as a media charade, to distract from ongoing Brexit negotiations and the fact that the U.K. government has been slow to tackle the issue seriously.

Fear that new car petrol/diesel ban in 23 years time is smokescreen for weak measures to tackle 40,000 deaths a year from air pollution now.

— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) July 25, 2017

Criticism is also emerging from industry officials who condemn the government’s plan because of the negative ramifications it may have on car manufacturing jobs.

“Outright bans risk undermining the current market for new cars and our sector, which supports over 800,000 jobs across the U.K.,” said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Even among supporters of a gas car ban, some are critical of the timeline, which they consider to be too forgiving.

Areeba Hamid, a clean air campaigner at Greenpeace UK said: “We cannot wait nearly a quarter of a century for real action to tackle the public health emergency caused by air pollution.”

While 2040 was set as a benchmark by other countries, India has stated that every vehicle sold in the country should be powered by electricity by 2030.

Norway has adopted a similar rule, but has set its target to ban diesel-powered vehicles by 2025. Forty percent of all cars sold in Norway last year were electric or hybrid, making the country a leader in this area.

Maybe Not…

In comparison to some other countries, the U.K.’s goals seem far off. Yet, researchers are confident that the market might naturally transition to cleaner cars sooner than politicians expect.

The Dutch financial group ING released a report earlier this month predicting that the electric car market will see a major breakthrough between 2017 and 2024, and could supply 100 percent of Europe’s car demand by 2035.

Car manufacturers aren’t wasting any time either. Tesla made waves when it announced its mass market electric Model 3 car earlier this month.

Also this month, Volvo said that all of its cars would be be completely or partially electric by 2019. Volvo’s chief executive Håkan Samuelsson called for the “end of the solely combustion engine-powered car.” And BMW announced on Tuesday that it would start building an electric model of the Mini compact car in England through 2023.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Britain to Ban Sale of Gas and Diesel Cars by 2040 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Steve King Wants to Fund Border Wall With Food Stamps and Planned Parenthood Funding

The debate over how to fund a border wall between Mexico and the U.S. is far from over. The Office of Management and Budget has requested $1.6 billion in taxpayer money to pay for construction of the wall. But this morning, Representative Steve King from Iowa said he wants to spend even more money than that. In an interview on CNN, he said he would “throw another $5 billion on the pile and I would find half a billion of that from right out of Planned Parenthood’s budget. And the rest of it could come out of food stamps and the entitlements that are being spread out for people who haven’t worked in three generations.”

Has republican congressman @SteveKingIA – a friend of far-right populists Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders – reached peak evil here? https://t.co/UuWWCdLr3C

— Evan O’Connell (@evanoconnell) July 12, 2017

Almost two-thirds of all Americans who receive food stamps are children, disabled, or elderly. An average food stamp household has an annual income of less than $10,000. “I’m sure that all of them didn’t need it,” King said.

In a document from May, the Trump Administration stated it wanted to cut the food stamp program by $193 billion. The irony is that out of the 10 areas with the highest concentration of food stamps, seven voted for Trump. This morning, King also implied that an increasing number of Americans are obese, so they don’t need food stamps.

Um. I think I just got to my desk in time to hear Rep. Steve King say on CNN getting rid of food stamps would solve obesity problem.

— Dorey Scheimer (@DoreyScheimer) July 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Prime Minister Theresa May addressed activists on Tuesday about where human rights fall on her priorities following Saturday’s attack in London and the Manchester bombing in late May. “And if our human rights laws stop us from [tackling extremism and terrorism], we’ll change the law so we can do it.” she said to a crowd in Berkshire, England.

This statement follows her speech on Sunday in which she presented a four-point plan toward combatting terrorism, and comes only 36 hours before polls open for Britain’s snap election this coming Thursday. Polls show her lead continuously shrinking. May also added that she wants to make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and monitor the movement of those suspects when there is a fear that they pose a threat but there’s not enough evidence to prosecute them.

While many are familiar with the human rights atrocities Britain has committed in its various roles as a colonial power, violations within its borders may come as a slight surprise to some. But May’s statements become less surprising with some context:

What “human rights laws” currently govern Britain?

There are two sets of laws that Britain currently abides by: the European Convention of Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act. The former was ratified in 1953 by the then-newly-formed Council of Europe after World War II to prevent anything like Nazi Germany from happening again, protect human rights, and defend “the fundamental freedoms in Europe.” The latter was created so that the rights contained in the ECHR would be incorporated into British law, and human rights breaches could be challenged in domestic courts without having to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

Wait, back up. Why do we care about the European Convention of Human Rights? Isn’t Britain leaving the EU?

The ECHR is separate from the EU so Britain doesn’t have to leave if it doesn’t want to. For the time being–it seems like the Conservatives, the current party in power, want to remain in it, according to their manifesto. The decision will be revisited after the next parliament’s term ends. Oddly enough, Conservatives are more concerned with replacing or amending the domestic Human Rights Act as they begin their Brexit.

Makes sense. But if there are two sets of human rights laws, wouldn’t that make it difficult to enact any change?

Despite May’s comments, precedent in the United Kingdom shows that the current “human rights laws” might not even need to be changed in order to accomplish the counter-terrorism policies she laid out (but we’ll get to that later).

Wait, so the UK can violate human rights?

Technically. Britain is allowed to “derogate”–or temporarily ignore–parts of the European Convention of Human Rights in a “time of emergency” that is “threatening the life of the nation” under Article 15 of the agreement. Their particular cup of tea is the suspension of habeas corpus. In 1979, for example, the European Court of Human Rights allowed them to use preventative detention without trial of PIRA terror suspects in Northern Ireland after a string of attacks killed British soldiers.

Today, terror suspects can be held for 14 days without a trial, a decision that was implemented with the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. May has stated that she is looking to revisit that number and seek derogation to extend that period to 28 days, a move that was attempted in 2011 when she was Home Secretary, the UK’s equivalent of a Director of Homeland Security, and when Conservative David Cameron was Prime Minister.

“When we reduced it to 14 days, we actually allowed for legislation to enable it to be at 28 days,” she said in an interview with The Sun. “We said there may be circumstances where it is necessary to do this. I will listen to what they think is necessary for us to do.”

Even doubling the figure seems tame compared to previous attempts to extend the length of uncharged detention. In 2005, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to lengthen the period to 90 days following the July 7 attack on London. That time, however, civil rights groups stepped in out of protest and that provision was subsequently dropped.

And even with all of this wiggle room, May wants to change the laws?

Yes. As previously stated, Conservatives don’t really view the Human Rights Act too favorably. Not necessarily in a maniacal way, more in a “we want to make a better version” way. They have wanted to replace the law with a British Bill of Rights for a few years now, and this year is no exception.

May’s comments about changing human rights laws most likely also comes from her suggested plans to expand terrorism prevention and investigation measures, a two-year designation given to terrorism suspects considered to be enough of a threat. The measures currently include overnight curfews of up to 10 hours, electronic tagging, reporting regularly to the police, exclusion from certain zones, enforced relocation, and some limitations on use of mobile phones and the internet.

When you bundle expanding all of that with her Sunday promise to “make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need,” it’s clear why she wants to remove as many legal roadblocks as possible.

What are other people saying about this?

Former director of public prosecutions and Labour shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, believes that the laws should stay in place as they are because they have not gotten in the way of combatting terrorism and extremism before.

“If we start throwing away our adherence to human rights… we are throwing away the very values at the heart of our democracy,” he said in a BBC Radio 4 Today interview.

Current Labour leader, and the closest political opponent to May in the election, Jeremy Corbyn, lambasted the Prime Minister’s comments and accused her of trying to “protect the public on the cheap,” referencing that fact that she cut nearly 20,000 police officers during her time as Home Secretary.

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron took the accusation a step further and said May’s speech about being tough on terror was just a facade.

“In her years as home secretary she was willing to offer up the police for cut after cut,” he said. “We have been here before – a kind of nuclear arms race in terror laws might give the appearance of action, but what the security services lack is not more power, but more resources. And responsibility for that lies squarely with Theresa May.”

Whether or not the British public believes May’s words will be tested in Thursday’s election. Polls show that Conservatives are still leading Labour by about six points, down from almost a double digit vote lead when both campaigns started.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Theresa May’s Challenge of Human Rights Laws is Unsurprising appeared first on Law Street.

Sweeping changes are likely to come in Britain’s policy toward terrorism and extremism after Prime Minister Theresa May declared that “enough is enough” during a speech outside of 10 Downing Street on Sunday. The speech was prompted after another attack on Saturday night at the London Bridge where a white van struck pedestrians in a coordinated attack that killed seven and injured dozens that was later claimed by ISIS.

This is the third major attack that has occurred in Britain this year including a terror attack on Westminister Bridge that occurred in March and the bombing at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in May.

In her speech, May responded with the introduction of a new four-point plan toward combating the “new trend” of ideological extremism. While the plan presented was broad and skimmed on policy specifics that might be introduced, it was indicative of the direction of counter-terrorism policy in Britain.

Defeating the Extremist Ideology

In her remarks, May recognized that while the attacks were not committed by the same organizations, they were all committed in the sense of a singular ideology. Her conclusion is that terrorism can only be defeated by changing the mindset of those vulnerable to violence, and to have them embrace British values.

This could mean that there could be a further expansion of the Prevent Strategy, a measure of the UK counter-terrorism system that aims to stop people from becoming or supporting terrorist and terror organizations.

Prevent was originally created in response to the London attacks in 2005 and aimed to support organizations that would improve integration of minority groups. But in 2011, under then-Home Secretary May, the program was revamped to focus on terrorism and training public officials to spot radicalism.

Prevent has shown success: data from 2015 shows the amount of people who travelled to Syria and Iraq from Britain has decreased. But the program has its critics who believe that it will naturally lead to more discrimination toward Islamic groups.

Crackdown on Online Extremism

May called upon both internet companies as well as democratic countries to form more international agreements to regulate extremism on the web.

Currently, the UK employs a counter-propaganda campaign where in 2015 social media snoopers were able to remove 55,000 pieces of radical propaganda. How this strategy could move beyond Britain and become an international agreement is still unknown.

“Too Much Tolerance of Extremism”

In perhaps the most controversial excerpt from her speech, the prime minister spoke candidly about the potential new powers that could come as a result of her new strategy, saying:

There is – to be frank – far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations.

One suggestion that May made was to increase custodial sentences for terrorist-related offenses, one of the harshest possible forms of criminal punishment in the UK justice system.

New Powers to Security and Police Forces? 

The final part of her plan indicated that May is leaning toward giving an increase in new powers to the security and protective services. This could mean that May is planning to revamp her counter-extremism bill that was rejected by the government’s lawyers in January because it failed to adequately define “extremism” and “British values.”

Critics of the legislation argue that by broadening the definition of what extremism is, it could lead to infringement on basic rights such as free speech and religion. But with the recent attacks that have taken place and an election within a matter of days it is very possible that legislation and reforms are on the horizon.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What is the Future of British Counter-Terrorism Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Britain Raises Threat Level, Anticipates More Attacks

British Prime Minister Theresa May raised the terror threat level in the country to its highest level yesterday evening, after ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in Manchester on Monday night. In a speech late last night, May declared that the government anticipates more attacks. She said the move to raise the threat level was based on “not only that an attack remains highly likely, but that a further attack may be imminent.” The heightened threat level, set to the maximum for the first time in 10 years, means as many as 5,000 troops could be soon patrolling the streets. Military personnel will assist police officers in “guarding duties at key fixed locations.”

UK prime minister says threat level has been raised from “severe to critical”; another attack “may be imminent.” https://t.co/A8P88DB3nl pic.twitter.com/0TgcSxkVzm

— ABC News (@ABC) May 24, 2017

May also said that the police are investigating whether the bomber, Salman Abedi, was acting alone. “The work undertaken throughout the day has revealed that it is a possibility that we cannot ignore, that there is a wider group of individuals linked to this attack,” she said. Some of the victims have now been identified, and one of them was only eight years old.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Prime Minister Theresa May kicked off the Brexit proceedings in a speech on Tuesday that outlined Britain’s future as an independent, globally engaged nation. After weeks of guessing at what May’s opening salvo would look like, Tuesday’s speech laid the groundwork for official negotiations between Britain and the European Union, which are set to begin in March. The entire withdrawal process is expected to take up to two years.

Speaking at the decadent Lancaster House in London, May spoke of a future where Britain is free from certain EU-related constraints while holding on to some privileges. For instance, she sees Britain as a global trading partner, outside the single market of the bloc, while also enjoying tariff-free trade with member states as part of the customs union.

“What I am proposing cannot mean remaining in the single market,” May said, adding that she wants “a new and equal partnership–between an independent, self-governing, global Britain and our friends and allies in the EU.” May specifically denounced a “half in, half out” approach to the future Britain-EU relationship. “We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave,” she said.

But in suggesting Britain can sign trade deals with non-European countries, while also engaging in tariff-free trade with the 27 members of the bloc, May laid out an ambitious plan that might be rejected in negotiations with EU officials in March. In the European single market system, members freely exchange goods, services, and people. If Britain opts out of the single market–a so-called “hard Brexit”–it will forfeit fluid capital movement within the bloc, but would gain autonomy to deal with other actors outside of it.

Some of May’s political opponents were dismayed by her insistence on leaving the single market. “She claimed people voted to leave the single market,” said Tim Farron, head of the Liberal Democrats. “They didn’t. She has made the choice to do massive damage to the British economy.” He warned that in fleeing the single market, Britain could experience “higher prices, greater instability, and rising fuel costs.”

The Brexit vote last June, when over 17 million Brits voted to leave the EU, came at a time of great concern about maintaining sovereignty in the face of increased immigration from the Middle East and Africa. But the result also caused British citizens living in other EU countries (1.2 million people), and citizens from other EU countries living in Britain (3.2 million people), to worry about their future.

May addressed those concerns in her speech. “We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can,” she said. May added that resolving the conflict is an “important priority,” and she would like to find a solution with the EU immediately, to “give people the certainty they want straight away.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Britain’s Prime Minister Details Brexit Strategy in Long-Awaited Speech appeared first on Law Street.

National Action is likely to be the first far-right group in Britain to be deemed a terrorist organization, which would effectively make joining and supporting the group a criminal offense. The group regularly invokes Nazi symbols at its rallies and online, and earlier this year, the group praised Thomas Mair for killing a member of Parliament, Jo Cox.

“I am determined that we challenge extremism in all its forms, including the evil of far right extremism,” Homes Secretary Amber Rudd said when Mair was convicted in November. On Monday, as Parliament signaled it will be proscribing, or banning, National Action, Rudd called the group “a racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic organization.”

Under Britain’s Terrorism Act 2000, groups can be classified as “terrorist organizations.” Seventy groups have been proscribed under the bill so far, most of which are Islamist groups. The act says a group classifies if it “commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

While it’s unclear if National Action members have committed a violent act of terrorism, they have certainly incited violence, and proselytize hateful rhetoric. For instance, members once sent out a tweet referring to Jewish people by a derogatory term that was used during the holocaust: “Tykes gassin [K*kes] is our motto, #Yorkshire needs you #AntiCommunism #ProNationalSocialism #DefendBritain.” The group’s Twitter account was suspended. In the website’s November update, National Action, which brands itself as a “nationalist youth movement,” addressed the potential ban. “We neither sanction or endorse terrorism,” the group said.

Being added to the government’s official list of terrorist organizations is not necessarily the right approach, the Anti-Fascist Network tweeted on Monday. Saying they support “community and class action, not state bans,” the group added: “They can avoid charges by simply re-branding as a ‘different’ group, and it’ll lend them an aura of action and danger.” But Parliament is moving full steam ahead with the ban. They will be discussing the ban this week, and it is expected to go into effect on Friday.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post British Parliament to Classify Neo-Nazi Group National Action as Terrorist Organization appeared first on Law Street.

Chocoholics in Britain are going crazy over the changed shape of the Toblerone chocolate bars. There used to be a tiny gap between the triangles–now it seems to have doubled!

What the what?!?! @Toblerone … when did you create a dual carriage way through the mountains?!?! pic.twitter.com/xfHPF5W5bq

— nathalie pownall (@Nathaliepownall) October 28, 2016

This is a travesty for fans of the iconic Swiss chocolate bar. But the shape has only changed in Britain. According to Mondelez International, the company that owns the brand, the rising prices of ingredients have made it more expensive to produce the mountain shaped chocolate. So the company decided to add more space in between the triangles to save a little cash. They could keep the same packaging, length, and even price, but buyers will get about 10 percent less chocolate per bar. But this was obviously not okay with chocolate consumers.

Why don’t they should just change the name to NO-blerone and be done with it? #Toblerone #TobleroneGate #TobleroneTuesday pic.twitter.com/dpMKDqwMIO

— Claire Murrihy (@ClaireMurrihy) November 8, 2016

Many people have pointed out that this change comes after the Brexit vote. The British will no longer be a part of the European Union, and no longer have the same access to delicious Swiss chocolate as other Europeans.

#toblerone #brexit I told you that leaving the EU would have serious consequences. Now I’ m really upset. pic.twitter.com/w81cWYpNl4

— Mark Greenwood (@markcjgreenwood) November 8, 2016

Since the British opted out of the EU, the value of the British pound has fallen significantly, making commodities like cacao way more expensive than before. This is yet another reason for division between the voters who voted for or against Brexit. However, last Thursday did see a rise in the pound, after the High Court in Britain ruled that Parliament has to vote before an actual Brexit can take place.

Here’s another conspiracy theory for you all: some people believe the chocolate brand chose to reshape the bars right now because no one would notice due to all the U.S. election hysteria.

I bet @Toblerone thought they could sneak their new smaller bar out today and hope #ElectionDay would cover up the news #TobleroneGate

— seanieb1983 (@seanieb1983) November 8, 2016

Financially this is a tactic that more and more companies are using to avoid raising prices, and it could hit more types of candy in the coming months. “The new gappy-teeth Toblerone is yet another example of shrinkflation, where shrinking pack contents allows for a backdoor price rise,” said retailing expert Ratula Chakraborty.

But most of us feel like this:

All this talk about #TobleroneGate is making me want #Toblerone right now.

— Busy Working Mummy (@busyworkingmum1) November 8, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chocolate Fans Outraged Over the Changed Shape of Toblerone: Is Brexit to Blame? appeared first on Law Street.

The process involving Britain’s exit from the European Union might start later than Prime Minister Theresa May had hoped, as the High Court ruled on Thursday that Parliament must vote on the matter before the “Brexit” can begin. May, who was sworn in earlier this summer after David Cameron stepped down, immediately signaled she would appeal the decision next month, and is still targeting March 2017 as the beginning of Britain’s withdrawal from the bloc.

Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, is the lead plaintiff in the case. Her argument is that Article 50, the part of the Lisbon Treaty that allows for an exit from the EU to begin, can only be approved with a vote from Parliament. In his ruling in favor of Miller, Lord chief justice John Thomas said: “The most fundamental rule of the U.K. Constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make or unmake any law it chooses.”

On June 23, 17.4 million Brits voted in support of a British exit from the EU. The result quickly sent shockwaves domestically and abroad: Cameron stepped down after the political embarrassment, May stepped in, stock markets plunged, and the pound hit historic lows. May promised to deliver on what the majority of her country desired, and set March of next year as the point when Article 50 would be invoked, and deliberations with the EU for a smooth exit would begin.

May’d my day #Brexit pic.twitter.com/Y3oBoUijaB

— Toni Giugliano (@ToniGiugliano) November 4, 2016

But Thursday’s ruling, while unlikely to reverse the Brexit result, might stall the process, and some analysts say it could limit May’s ability to seek her terms for the exit, and give her less flexibility in negotiations with the EU. Nigel Farage, former leader of the UK Independence Party and a staunch Brexit supporter, said he fears Thursday’s ruling could lead to a “half Brexit.”

“I think we could be at the beginning, with this ruling, of a process where there is a deliberate, willful attempt by our political class to betray 17.4 million voters,” he said in an interview on BBC Radio, promising he would return to politics in 2019 if Britain has not left the EU by then.

Miller, while capturing a legal victory, experienced first-hand the anti-immigrant undertones of Brexit following Thursday’s ruling. The daughter of Guyanese immigrants, Miller got hit with a barrage of hateful messages on social media, with one user on Twitter posting the message, “Kill her, she’s not even British.” Miller has lived in the country for 41 years, since she was 10 years old.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Parliament Stop “Brexit” from Happening? appeared first on Law Street.

On June 23, the United Kingdom held its long-awaited vote on whether or not to stay in the European Union. In a somewhat surprising development, 30 million people across the U.K. voted to leave the European Union. In the end, Leave voters won with 52 percent of the vote while Remain had 48 percent, in an election with the nation’s highest voter turnout since 1992.

While the debate over whether to leave the Union generated acrimony between the two sides involved, it also held the potential to leave a much larger impact on the world at large. Read on to find out more about the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, nicknamed Brexit, the immediate impact on the nation and the possible regional and global ramifications that may still play out.

The United Kingdom and the European Union

The European Union has its origins in the European Coal and Steel Community, an agreement made between six countries, notably including France and Germany, following World War II in an effort to prevent future wars. The agreement quickly evolved into the European Economic Community in 1957, furthering ideas such as free trade and free movement, which serve as the basis of the EU today.

Britain at first was hesitant to join, seeing itself as above the Union and on par with the great post-war powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union. However, following sluggish economic growth in the 1960s, Britain eventually reached out about joining. Britain finally joined in 1973 but in 1975, almost immediately after joining, the country actually had its first referendum on whether or not to stay in the union. In that case, the Remain vote was overwhelming.

Despite the positive referendum results, Britain’s two major political parties, Conservative and Labour, took turns decrying the EU and suggesting an exit during the 1970s and 1980s. Ultimately, though, the nation remained with some caveats, such as not buying into the union’s single currency. Support for the union increased and remained steady within British ruling politics throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Things began to turn on their irrevocable course beginning in 2005 when David Cameron assumed leadership of the Conservative Party.

Cameron had incorporated Euro-skeptics into his winning coalition and thus had to agree to policies that began distancing Britain from the EU. That move was combined with the rise of anti-immigration sentiment, anti-EU parties, and the EU’s own economic decline following the Great Recession. As part of his most recent election victory in 2015, Cameron promised a referendum on Britain’s EU membership, which ultimately led to Brexit.

Brexit

Clearly, the Brexit vote was a long time in the making as Britain seemingly always had one foot out the door. The argument took two sides. Those who opposed exiting the EU believed that Britain, as a small island, needed to be part of a larger unit to continue to enjoy economic success and to remain secure. Conversely, those campaigning against the EU decried the perceived growing overreach from Brussels (where EU institutions are located), which they contend threatens Britain’s very sovereignty.

The Remain camp was led by then Prime Minister David Cameron, who essentially staked his reputation and political career on voters deciding to remain in the European Union. Within the U.K., Cameron was supported by most of his own Conservative Party, the opposing Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish National Party. Globally his coalition was strengthened by notable world leaders including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and President Barack Obama. Most major businesses and prominent economists also supported staying in the union.

The opposition was headed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) then led by Nigel Farage. Supporting him were other members of Cameron’s own party including, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Those in favor of exiting the European Union were also endorsed by far-right parties across Europe including in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. To learn more about the recent rise of right-wing, nationalist groups in Europe check out this Law Street explainer.

To formally leave the European Union, the U.K. must invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which was signed in 2007. According to Article 50, the U.K. will have up to two years to negotiate with other EU members the conditions of its exit covering everything from trade to immigration. Experts, however, contend the negotiations could take much longer. No one is entirely certain of how the process will work out–the U.K. is the first country to leave the EU-and until the negotiations are complete, conditions will remain the same as they are currently. The video below looks at the consequences of Brexit:

The Fallout

Although no one knew for sure what exactly the impact would be if the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, many predicted it would be unfavorable. The speculation seemed to become a reality both economically and politically for the island nation.

While consumer spending has remained relatively flat, there are a number of other indicators that suggest not all is well. This starts with the British Pound, which quickly lost one-tenth of its value against the dollar and the FTSE 250, a domestic British index, which has also lost significant value. Additionally, hiring has gone down, while unemployment may be increasing. This quagmire is further complicated by business investment, which has also been shrinking. Even hope that a reduced Pound would lead to more travel seems quelled as inflation is rising faster than the increase in tourism.

Britain is not only struggling economically but politically as well. Following the Brexit vote, then Prime Minister David Cameron, who had wagered his career on remaining in the European Union, resigned. This move was followed by a wave of uncertainty as the main opposing party to Cameron, the Labour Party, dealt with a leadership challenge of its own and two of the major candidates for the Prime Minister position dropped out of contention.

While Theresa May ultimately assumed control of the Conservative Party, her new cabinet is a hodge-podge of those in favor of remaining in the EU and those for Brexit, including Boris Johnson who was one of the people who recently dropped out of contention for the role of Prime Minister. Although the Conservative party remains in flux, the Labour party has turned into a disaster with the leader refusing to step down despite a no-confidence vote, leading to an internal struggle.

Regional Impact

Aside from what occurred in England, is what happened and what might happen within the United Kingdom at large. Although England and Wales both voted to leave the European Union, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted with greater majorities to stay. While this may be less of a problem if these were different states within a country, they are actually all independent countries.

After all, it was only last year that the nation of Scotland voted narrowly to stay in the United Kingdom. It is unsurprising then that Scotland’s prime minister has now floated the idea of holding a second referendum for Scottish Independence following Brexit as a way to keep the country within the EU. Scotland is also likely to suffer more economically than Britain as it relies on oil sales for a large portion of its economic output, which were already hampered by low prices.

Along with a potential second Scottish referendum, some even want Ireland to hold a vote to unify following Brexit, however, that idea was quickly shot down by the leader of Northern Ireland and seems much less likely. Even the tiny British territory of Gibraltar will be affected. Situated on the southern tip of Spain, Gibraltar faces the threat of greater Spanish incursion with Britain leaving the EU. The following video looks at the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland and Scotland:

Impact on the United States

In the United States, the impact has been relatively subdued. While it remains to be determined how Brexit will affect the close relationship between the United States and Britain as well as the European Union at large, the economy was the first to feel the brunt of the decision. Following Brexit, U.S. stocks plunged for two straight days before rebounding and actually reaching record highs a few weeks later. Since then, the effects of Brexit in the United States have been portrayed as negligible with the Federal Reserve still planning on going ahead with at least one interest rate increase this year–something unlikely if the economy was believed to be in real financial danger. The accompanying video looks at some of the potential ramifications of Brexit for the US:

Conclusion

The United Kingdom never seemed to be fully committed to the European Union, and when the EU’s downsides started to outweigh its advantages in the eyes of British citizens, it was deemed time to leave. The impact of this decision has been swift with economic consequences spanning the world. But the true extent of the damage and even what leaving the EU will mean for the U.K. will still take years to sort out.

While much of the blame for this decision rests on British politicians, they are not solely at fault. The Brexit vote was the culmination of a much larger pattern across Europe and may even have parallels to the United States. In the U.K. politicians turned to advocating for nationalism and a refocusing of government policy inwards versus abroad. This was only further exacerbated by the mass migration crisis gripping the continent. This decision, however, was also the result of a union that is stuck in a proverbial purgatory, too united in some regards and not enough in others.

Lastly, the European Union may still face some challenges to the way in which it creates rules for member states–has the process become too top-down, with little bottom-up influence? Certainly in the case of the Brexit vote, citizens at the lowest level voted to topple the existing order and cast the futures of many parts of the world into question. While Britain’s exit may now be unavoidable, this is a good opportunity for pause both for the EU and the U.K., to consider how decisions are made and how to avoid future independence movements or bouts of fragmentation.

Resources

BBC News: The U.K.’s EU Referendum: All you need to know

European Futures: How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Britain’s Membership of the EU

The Telegraph: Theresa May Pledges to Save the Union as Nicole Sturgeon Promises Scottish Referendum Vote to EU Nationals

The New York Times: ‘Brexit’: Explaining Britain’s Vote on European Union Membership

Law Street Media: Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force?

The Economist: Straws in the Wind

NBC News: Brexit Fallout: Gibraltar Worries About Spain’s Next Move

The Financial Times: A tempest Tears Through British politics

The Week: What is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?

Bloomberg: Two More Fed Officials Play Down Brexit Impact on U.S. Growth

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breaking Down Brexit: What the U.K.’s Decision Means for Itself and the World appeared first on Law Street.

Britain has a new prime minister after Andrea Leadsom announced her exit from the race Monday morning. Theresa May, the 59-year-old home secretary, will replace David Cameron as the leader of the United Kingdom. Soon after Leadsom signaled her exit Monday morning, it became clear that few barriers still stood in May’s way.

First, Leadsom cleared the way for May to be the last woman standing, and the last candidate in a field that dwindled from five to two over the past few weeks. “Strong leadership is needed urgently to begin the work of withdrawing from the European Union,” Leadsom said Monday morning, reading from a letter addressed to the chairman of the 1922 committee (a group of influential lawmakers in the Conservative Party), Graham Brady. “[Theresa May] is ideally placed to implement Brexit on the best possible terms for the British people.”

So grateful for all the support – I do believe my decision is in the best interests of the country and our economy & I wish Theresa success!

— Andrea Leadsom MP (@andrealeadsom) July 11, 2016

Then, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson–two supporters of the “Leave” campaign that successfully sparked Britain’s exit from the European Union—voiced their support for May. Finally, once it became apparent that she would become his successor, Cameron read a statement in support of May, and said he would officially step down as prime minister on Wednesday. “I am delighted that Theresa May will be the next prime minister,” he said, calling her “strong, competent and more than capable.”

And at five o’clock Monday evening, May was officially coronated as the leader of the Conservative Party and prime minister of Britain. She paid tribute to her former opponents as well as Cameron, and said she was “[honored] and humbled to have been chosen by the Conservative party to become its leader.” Her statement continued:

During this campaign my case has been based on three things. First, the need for strong, proven leadership to steer us through what will be difficult and uncertain economic and political times, the need, of course, to negotiate the best deal for Britain in leaving the EU, and to forge a new role for ourselves in the world. Brexit means Brexit, and we are going to make a success of it.

Her second and third tenets, she said, will be to unite the country and make sure it works “not for the privileged few but that works for everyone one of us.” May will be the second female prime minister in Britain’s history, and the first since Margaret Thatcher, who led the UK from 1979 to 1990. In the months preceding Britain’s exit from the EU, May supported the “Stay” camp, though she did not project her stance as vigorously or vocally as other candidates. In her first official statement as prime minister and in remarks she gave earlier in the day, before Leadsom dropped out, May reiterated the fact that “Brexit means Brexit.” There would not be a second referendum, she said. 

Not everyone in Parliament is unanimously in support of May, however. Three parties–Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens–are calling for a general election, saying that the Conservative Party no longer has the mandate to govern since its leader, Cameron, resigned. The next scheduled general election is in 2020, five years after the Conservative Party won its parliamentary majority in 2015. 

With @TheresaMay2016‘s coronation we need an early General Election. The Tories now have no mandate. Britain deserves better than this.

— Tim Farron (@timfarron) July 11, 2016

But dissent from opposing parties will do little to halt the ascent of Britain’s newly minted leader, at least for the next four years: Prime Minister Theresa May. 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Day In the UK: Theresa May Is the First Female PM In 26 Years appeared first on Law Street.

John Oliver took the opportunity on Independence Day to release a little web special, with a reminder to Americans about the original “Brexit.” It has now been 240 years since Americans kicked the Britons out, and he wanted us to think about what could have been. According to Oliver, this is a sampling of what you guys miss out on by not being British:

• The accent–the “beautiful vowel sounds” of the British could have been yours, Oliver points out, before describing what he thinks the American accent sounds like. (Spoiler alert: it’s not flattering.)
• Fashion–the little black bowler hats are also something that Americans probably envy the Brits.
• The cuisine, like minced meat pie–the British delicacy that embodies the British people. According to Oliver, they’re hard and crusty on the outside, they can give you the impression of composure, but on the inside it’s just a hot f***ing mess.

Finally, Oliver concluded by pointing out the very significant difference between the American sunny optimism and the British cloudy pessimism. It is a well-known fact and cultural difference that Americans have a hard-to-break confidence. Brits on the other hand would “never make the mistake of developing self-esteem” since they know they could never be as good as the Queen. Oliver even took a shot at the Queen, dubbing her “an elderly woman who frowns for a living.”

Generously, Oliver admitted that America might be better off the way it is, after all.

The show is having a summer break but will be back on July 24. Watch the clip below:

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver: What are Americans Missing out on by Not Being British? appeared first on Law Street.

Britain voted on Thursday to end its 43-year membership in the European Union. The withdrawal process will be long–it will most likely be two years until Britain is entirely sovereign–and fraught with difficult decisions for the nation’s future, but the vote has sent tremors within the now-former EU member-state and beyond. Here is a briefing on Brexit and what it might mean for the future:

From EU Member to “See EU Later”

This is not the first time Britain has held a vote on whether it should remain in the EU or not. In 1975, a similar referendum was held, but obviously, the country voted to remain in the bloc. British ill will toward the EU has permeated the country for decades, but the stage was set for Thursday’s vote in 2013 when Prime Minister David Cameron promised a Brexit referendum. With the promise, Cameron hoped to prove to an anti-European faction within his Conservative Party that most Britons disagreed with that sentiment.

This morning’s front page: See EU later! pic.twitter.com/ntv8ofV3Kv

— Sun Politics (@SunPolitics) June 24, 2016

In February of this year, at a summit with other European leaders in Brussels, Cameron announced the date when the referendum would be held. “Leave” supporters gained steam in the weeks that followed, and in April formed an official campaign, with the UK Independence Party as its informal leader. The spring was filled with division and discord, as many young people supported EU membership while older Britons grew disillusioned with its stifling bureaucracy.

A Fractured United Kingdom

The UK might be leaving the EU, but not all of the Kingdom’s countries support that move. Voter turnout was about 72 percent turnout throughout the entire UK, with 17.4 million people (or 52 percent of the total vote) on the Leave side and 16.1 million (48 percent) in the Remain camp. England saw the widest gap between those who favored Leave over Remain–53 percent to 47 percent respectively. Wales had similar figures, though its population is three million compared to England’s 53 million.

In fact, those were the only two regions of the UK that favored leaving the bloc. Scotland voted heavily in favor of the Remain side, with 62 percent of Scots wishing for the UK to stay an EU member-state. Northern Ireland and London saw similar percentages in favor of remaining. The fissures within the UK are significant, because there may be more Leave referendums to come, and most likely Scotland will vote for a second time whether or not to secede from Britain and become its own sovereign nation.

Britain’s Political Future

Soon after Thursday’s results were announced, David Cameron announced his resignation after six years in office. Many who are disappointed with the referendum’s result pin the blame on Cameron, who offered to bring the EU question to a referendum in the first place.

Speaking at 10 Downing Street, Cameron applauded the Leave campaign for a “spirited and passionate” effort and reiterated his view that the country would be better off as a part of the now 27-member bloc. He also said:

But the British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path, and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction. I will do everything I can as prime minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months, but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination.

So who will lead in his place? The next general election is scheduled for 2020, though that could be moved up due to Thursday’s shocking result. A leading candidate to succeed Cameron is Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London and a prominent voice in the Leave campaign. Home Secretary Theresa May and Chancellor George Osborne are other leading candidates.

Financial Instability

Irrespective of the potential long-term effects on the British economy, Brexit hit U.S. and global financial markets hard in the early morning hours on Friday. The British pound took a steep dive as well. As of 10:30 am Friday morning, the Dow Jones fell by 402 points, a 2.2 percent drop, and the Nasdaq dropped by 2.8 percent. In total, $450 billion of U.S. market value was erased on Friday morning. Tremors from Brexit were also felt in East Asian markets, as Japan’s Nikkei 225 index fell by more than seven percent and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index declined by 4.7 percent.

The British pound fell 10 percent, dropping its U.S. dollar exchange rate from $1.50 to $1.36. That is a 31-year low. The euro dropped by 3.8 percent as well. And the long-term consequences are just as bleak, according to most economists. Uncertainty might plague financial markets in at least the short-term future. Trade with Europe and the rest of the world could be hit hard, and travel will likely be restricted. John Van Reenen, director of the Center for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, told the New York Times in May:

The pro-Brexit argument that Britain will be free of lots of regulations, that there will be a bonfire of red tape that will cause us to grow rapidly and we’ll strike lots of new trade deals as this buccaneering new England–there’s just no credible scenario to any of that.

America’s Response to Brexit

Predictably, American leaders weighed in during the hours that followed the Brexit results. Barack Obama said that America’s relationship with the UK will not change, nor will its commitment to the EU, which “has done so much to promote stability, stimulate economic growth, and foster the spread of democratic values and ideals across the continent and beyond,” he said. Vice President Joe Biden, who was in Ireland when the results came in, said the United States “fully respects” the decision, but “preferred a different outcome,” adding, “And our relationship with Ireland and the European Union will remain the cornerstone of our global engagement.”

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, took to Twitter to voice his support for the UK and its “brave & brilliant vote:”

Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2016

Trump, whose movement in the United States has been compared to the Brexit Leave campaign, was in Turnery, Scotland to promote his new golf course. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive nominee on the Democrats’ side, used the result as an opportunity to reiterate the importance of a solid leader come November. “This time of uncertainty only underscores the need for calm, steady, experienced leadership in the White House to protect Americans’ pocketbooks and livelihoods, to support our friends and allies, to stand up to our adversaries, and to defend our interests,” she said in a statement.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brexit: What You Need to Know in the Aftermath of Britain’s Historic Vote appeared first on Law Street.

In Sunday’s episode of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver explained the concept of Brexit for the American people, and presented a message to his fellow Britons. This is what he said about the European Union:

It’s a complicated, bureaucratic, ambitious, overbearing, inspirational and consistently irritating institution–and Britain would be absolutely crazy to leave it. Especially because if it stays, it can reap all the benefits while still being a total dick about everything, and that is the British way.

Britain is voting on Thursday on whether to remain in the EU, in the so-called Brexit referendum. The matter has not been widely covered in the US, and as you may wonder–why should Americans care? The fact is that Britain leaving the EU could have a huge impact on the world economy, and considering the special relationship between Britain and the US, on America’s economy as well.

Oliver listed institutions such as the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund, and more among those who have said that leaving would have a negative impact on the British GDP. Then came a clip of the UK Justice Secretary saying he thinks people have had “enough of experts” who think they know best. “Fuck these eggheads with their studies and degrees, I get my economic forecast from clever Otis, the GDP predicting horse,” was Oliver’s ironic reply.

Among the most vocal supporters for Britain to leave the EU is the UK Independence Party, UKIP, which has the immigration issue at the top of its agenda. With refugee numbers at record highs, and increasing racism and nationalism in Europe, the situation has turned toxic. Last week pro-immigration politician Jo Cox was murdered by an assailant who seems to have had ties with white supremacist groups. He stated his name as “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain” in court.

But Brits who fear immigrants may come in and steal their jobs shouldn’t be too quick to vote “leave.” As Oliver said, even if Britain were to exit the EU, it would not mean it would have complete control over their borders. As long as the nation wants to keep trading with the rest of Europe, it would have to keep abiding by some of its rules.

To cap off his tirade, Oliver said he understands the British need for telling the EU to bugger off, but suggested they do so with a profanity-laced song instead. Fast-forward to around the 14 minute mark in the above video to watch.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver to Britain: The EU is an “Irritating Institution,” But Don’t Leave appeared first on Law Street.

The murder of British politician and Member of Parliament Jo Cox, 41, shocked Britain on Thursday. Now police are investigating whether the assailant was a white supremacist, supporter of an anti-Islam right wing group Britain First, or just a mentally disturbed loner.

What happened?

Jo Cox of the British opposition Labour party was leaving a meeting with constituents in northern England on Thursday, when a man armed with what has been described as an antique or handmade gun and a knife attacked her. She later died in the hospital. The killing came as a shock in a country where attacks on politicians are very rare, and gun laws very strict. She leaves behind her husband and two small children.

Remembering Jo Cox https://t.co/Ww6WO5DpzW pic.twitter.com/bOsGyg6ucr

— Human Rights Watch (@hrw) June 17, 2016

Britain First

The suspect Thomas Mair, 52, was arrested a few blocks from the crime scene. Early witnesses reported hearing the assailant shout “Britain First” as he shot and repeatedly stabbed Cox. This is the name of a far right wing group that wants to ban Islam, stop immigration, abolish the human rights act, and advocates for Britain to leave the EU.

Jo Cox was an active advocate for Syrian immigrants, known for her passion for human rights and refugees, as well as her campaigning against Brexit. Britain First released a video denying all involvement with the attack.

JO COX SHOOTING: Britain First official statement – https://t.co/S7etYC2Mmh pic.twitter.com/s2UlWZgxiA

— Britain First (@BritainFirst) June 16, 2016

American White Supremacists

Now reports from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a US based organization that tracks hate groups, claim that Mair bought a book about how to make a homemade gun. He reportedly bought the manual online in 1999 from the American Neo-Nazi group National Alliance, and subscribed to the group’s magazine and an apartheid magazine from South Africa.

Mair also bought a copy of the Nazi handbook “Ich Kampfe,” which is a reference to the infamous “Mein Kampf” by Adolf Hitler and was handed out to new members of the Nazi Party in 1940’s Germany.

British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed his condolences on Twitter.

As a mark of respect for Jo Cox MP our flag is flying at half-mast over Number 10 today pic.twitter.com/vpiOEBXOKH

— UK Prime Minister (@Number10gov) June 17, 2016

A Quiet Man

But neighbors and family describe Mair as a quiet gardener who’s never been in trouble. His half-brother told ITV News “he wouldn’t hurt a fly”. This raises questions of whether Mair was deeply mentally ill, and whether the attack could have prevented with proper mental care. Mair spoke to a local newspaper in 2011 about how his volunteer work for a county park helped him with mental issues:

I can honestly say it has done me more good than all the psychotherapy and medication in the world. Many people who suffer from mental illness are socially isolated and disconnected from society, feelings of worthlessness are also common mainly caused by long-term unemployment.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn paid a tribute to Cox on Friday.

Today I travelled to Birstall to pay tribute to Jo Cox along with her colleagues, friends & the community she servedhttps://t.co/rnBoaCFif0

— Jeremy Corbyn MP (@jeremycorbyn) June 17, 2016

Neighbor David Pickles also described Mair as a peaceful man who kept to himself.

He’s just quiet. He kept himself to himself. He lived by himself. He’s been on his own for about 20 years. I’ve never seen a lot of people visiting or anything like that, but he likes gardening. He did a lot of people’s gardens round here. But he did it quietly.

In the wake of the murder of Jo Cox, the campaigning for the referendum on Brexit is suspended, but the voting will take place as planned on June 23.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Suspect in Murder of British MP Jo Cox Had Ties With Neo-Nazis appeared first on Law Street.

It’s common for older politicians to go to great lengths to relate to and connect with young voters who are sometimes decades younger than themselves. David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom–in an effort to induce young people to go to the polls on June 23 to vote for Britain to remain in the European Union–might utilize an untapped tool: Tinder.

While the 49-year-old will not be joining Tinder, or TheLADbible–a popular virtual community for young men–according to a spokesperson, he is considering using both as advertising platforms to spur young voters to participate in the June 23 referendum to prevent a “Brexit,” or a British exit from the EU.

“Cameron was holding meetings with various social media outlets to explore ways of encouraging more people to vote,” the spokesperson said in response to speculation of a Cameron Tinder profile, adding that the rumor “isn’t true.” Cameron has already engaged with Facebook and Twitter in an effort to get young people to register to vote before the June 7 deadline, hosting a meeting with representatives from the social media giants last week.

The youth vote is important to Cameron, who opposes Brexit, because polls suggest nearly two-thirds of those under 25 share his position. 

Young voters have never lived in a Britain untethered to a united Europe. The last time a similar vote occurred was 1975 when Britons took to the polls to vote on whether the island should remain in the European Economic Community–the precursor of the EU–or leave the bloc. Britain remained an EEC member with 67 percent of the vote going to the “remain” camp.

The arguments from each side largely revolve around the economy, British sovereignty, and safety. The primary arguments of Brexit supporters: immigration–those seeking jobs from other EU countries or those seeking refuge from the Middle East–is out of control and will worsen as EU ties strengthen. Greater EU cooperation–politically and economically speaking–has left Britain with a shrinking ability to act for itself. And in terms of the economy, long-term gains would outweigh short-term losses.

Arguments from the pro-Europe side, who are in favor of Britain remaining an EU member state: the bloc offers stability and security against potential threats abroad, namely Russia and China. Many leading economists argue that the uncertainty surrounding a Brexit would be detrimental to the economy. Nearly half of Britain’s exports land elsewhere in the EU, and an exit would mean less fluid trade with the continent, threatening British exports.

Young Brits would not be the only ones affected by a Brexit–1.3 million people between the ages of 18-35 who are citizens of other EU nations live and work in Britain. A vote for a Brexit could mean jobs lost and unstable futures for those without British citizenship, which at the moment, due to Britain’s EU member state status, does not prevent them from working in the country. However, that could be the case if Britain leaves the EU and gets ride of its lax immigration laws for EU members.

And while a “David Cameron, 49, prime minister seeking young voters” profile might not show up on Tinder, Bite the Ballot–a political group seeking to engage young voters–has not shot down its own partnership with the dating app: “We are in talks with Tinder… but can’t talk about specifics at this stage,” said Partnership Coordinator Kenny Imafidon.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post David Cameron on Tinder? When Wooing Young Voters, Anything is Possible appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s verbal battle between London’s new mayor, Sadiq Khan, and Republican candidate Donald Trump is not over. Trump has now replied in an interview with British ITV, and said that Khan’s comments that he is ignorant were “very rude” and that he “will remember them.” Trump pointed out that Khan doesn’t know him and has never met him, and that he doesn’t really care about him or what he thinks. He also suggested an IQ test battle (which Khan declined).

Khan’s comments about Trump being ignorant came after several outbursts from the Republican about Islam and a possible ban on Muslims entering the U.S. After Trump’s comments, British politicians debated a ban on Trump entering their country, after a petition that was signed by over half a million people. However, the discussion in Parliament was seen more as an opportunity to discuss opinions about Trump and will probably not lead to an actual prohibition on a visit from the American. It did, however, lead to a statement from British Prime Minister David Cameron saying Trump’s suggestion to ban Muslims was “divisive, stupid and wrong.”

Donald Trump tells @piersmorgan: I may not have a 'very good relationship' with David Cameron if I become presidenthttps://t.co/Rw3Wc1ojec

— ITV News (@itvnews) May 16, 2016

In this morning’s interview Trump said that he and Cameron are “not going to have a very good relationship” if he’s elected President. In regard to Cameron’s comments, he said that he is not divisive at all, but that “unlike our president now, I’m a unifier.” He also said that Britain leaving the European Union wouldn’t matter to him and would probably not hurt Britain’s economy at all–totally contrary to what President Obama said about the issue in April. Obama said that Britain would end up in the “back of the queue,” since when the U.S. is negotiating trade deals it is primarily focusing on doing so with the bigger block that is the EU.

Britain’s possible exit from the EU, generally called “Brexit,” will be decided in a referendum on June 23. The supporters of Brexit think that the EU is holding Britain back when it comes to trade and economics, and are critical of the many rules and membership fees that the EU is charging. Another point of disagreement is the free movement principle within the EU that allows people from other countries to come and work in Britain.

In the end, Trump called Britain a great ally, and said that the nation would definitely not be at the back of the queue with him, despite his quibbling with the British officials.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Responds to “Very Rude” Statements Made by Sadiq Khan and David Cameron appeared first on Law Street.

Every winter, the mountain resort of Davos, Switzerland plays host to the business world’s most eminent economic, journalistic and entrepreneurial minds at the World Economic Forum. The three-day long summit at Davos has repeatedly been lampooned as an obnoxious demonstration of power and privilege that does very little to create significant change in the world economy. However, looking past the elaborate meals and chartered helicopters, Davos can grant insight into what the top tier of the economic sector has planned for the future. Read on for a breakdown of the most important moments at Davos this month and what they mean for 2016.

What is Davos?

The World Economic Forum–a Swiss nonprofit based in Geneva–holds its annual meeting in the ski resort town of Davos, in the Eastern Alps. The meeting is usually comprised of approximately 2,500 business leaders, policy makers, and journalists–referred to as “influencers.” The three-day conference serves as an opportunity to discuss the world’s most pressing economic and social challenges and often serves as a crucial meeting place for building the groundwork for both corporate and political collaboration in the coming year. Davos’ mission is to facilitate public-private sector relations, and while it has done an admirable job of meeting that goal, it is often criticized for being too exclusive or elitist. The Davos invitee list is often limited to only the most profitable economic corporations, mainstream news networks, and representatives from developed nations.

The Issues

Spotlight on Migration

The refugee crisis took center stage at this year’s conference, with political leaders discussing both the nature of open travel across Europe and the impact of the swell of immigrants on the continent’s economy. Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte claimed that Europe has only “six to eight weeks” to save the Schengen system of travel–which allows for unrestricted travel for those who hold visas for any of the twenty-six countries that make up the Schengen zone.  Several countries have suspended their Schengen policy and Davos provided opportunities for several ministers and politicians to discuss future plans for border control. Rutte argues that as spring approaches, the number of refugees entering Europe will only swell, potentially leading to a complete shutdown of the Schengen zone’s open border policy. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls also spoke on border policies, claiming that the European Union was not originally built to withstand the challenges of the refugee crisis.

In an interview given in the days before the conference began, billionaire George Soros added to the panic surrounding a European Union breakup by stating that

The EU is on the verge of collapse…the Greek crisis taught the European authorities the art of muddling through one crisis after another… The EU now is confronted with not one but five or six crises at the same time.

Outside of the formal roundtable discussions, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven spoke out regarding the spike in sexual attacks in Cologne, Germany and other European cities this month, saying that all refugees are not to blame for these crimes and that sexual harassment was problematic in Sweden and other nations long before the refugees arrived.

The Possibility of a “Brexit”

Davos’s discussions focused on the potential of Britain leaving the European Union in 2016 or 2017. Multiple European leaders made fervent pleas to the British representation and citizenry at large to stay within the union, referring to British secession as a “tragedy.” There is no scheduled vote on England leaving but with tensions over the refugee crisis stretching European governments thin, rumors of a potential British exit sent shock waves through Davos. However, Britain would most likely not benefit from exiting the EU in 2016. In a recent interview, Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia group, said that

If you’re asking if it is in Britain’s narrow interest to stay in Europe, I would say it is less in their interest than it was a year ago – but I would still make the point that if the Brits leave the EU, the likelihood that Scotland leaves Britain goes up very significantly, and I do believe that’s bad for the UK… Furthermore, leaving the single market, irrespective of the fact that Britain is not in the euro, would damage Britain’s role in finance globally; Britain would take a hit because of that. Also the logistics of the unwinding process, playing out over a couple of years, would be immensely distracting and damaging to both sides. Investment decisions are going to be changed both in the UK and the EU, and both would suffer

The potential “Brexit” dominated politician’s rhetoric at the summit but ultimately appeared to be a red herring as Prime Minister David Cameron stated that he is “not in a hurry” to schedule a vote on a British exit from the EU.

Debt Relief for Greece

During the forum, the IMF’s managing director, Christine Lagarde, and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, met briefly to discuss the future of the Greek economy.  The IMF has agreed to extend new loans to Greece but it has also publicly stated that it is only prepared to support Greece on a “strings-attached basis.” Greece will need to enact significant economic changes and receive backing from Eurozone partners if it wants to take on IMF funds. Representatives from both the IMF and the Greek delegation referred to the talks as cordial and productive. Tsipras made a statement during Davos promising to reform the Greek economy–while simultaneously criticizing European insistence on lowering budget deficits.

It should be noted that Lagarde, who is responsible for the IMF’s prediction of world economic growth, recently downgraded the statistic to 3.4 percent from 3.6 percent for 2017. This contributed to worries for all countries represented at Davos but should be especially troubling for Greece as it takes on its new package of loans. Tsipras made a series of optimistic statements regarding a rebound for Greece but with limited prospects for growth and the influx of migrants that have swept into Greece, his speeches hardly seem to be realistic.

Discussions on Gender Inequality

Davos featured multiple events on closing the gender gap this year. Historically, Davos has been male dominated and as only 11 percent of company board directors from across the globe are women, the invite list was still mainly masculine this year. However, the organizers of Davos did dedicate specific time and spaces to gender inequality brainstorming sessions and panels. The United Nations brought its HeforShe campaign to the summit. Both Sheryl Sandberg and Justin Trudeau spoke at a panel on gender inequality, advocating for business and political leaders to embrace feminism. The Girls’ Lounge, a space reserved for the 18 percent of Davos attendees who are female, hosted a roundtable discussion on gender inequality during this year’s conference. The discussion focused on making workplaces more equitable and changing the culture of the corporate world. However, German journalist Manuela Kasper-Claridge noted that a great deal of the events on gender inequality were led by men, seriously undercutting the participation of the female attendees. While the soundbites produced at the forum were mainly positive, relatively few attendees committed publicly to promoting gender equality in their corporations or parliaments.

Conclusion

Davos is not a perfect yardstick for upcoming political and economic changes as it only includes a small percentage of the thousands of decision makers involved in the global economy, but it does create a platform for valuable discussion. The refugee crisis continues to dominate the political and economic discussions of European parliaments, and the pressure from the potential withdrawal of Great Britain from the EU has only complicated the debate. Davos is struggling to create gender parity in its annual conference but its efforts this year may open up more discussions in the coming years and prove valuable in the effort to promote feminism in workplaces across the world. Ultimately, Davos is a forum held for ideas not action–there are no votes or referendums that come as a direct result, the stock market does not rise or fall based on its speeches, and many of the attendees are only repeating their position on issues they have discussed time and time again. However, Davos serves as an unparalleled signpost for where European leaders hope to focus their time, energy, and resources in 2016.

Resources

The Guardian: Let’s Make Attending Davos as Shameful as Running a Sweatshop

The Atlantic Sentinal: Weeks Left to Save Schengen, Dutch Premier Warns

The Express: EU could go UNDER in 6 WEEKS, Dutch PM Claims as France Admits ‘We Weren’t Built for This’

The Daily Mail: Davos elites fear weakened European Union

The Irish Times: Number of Migrants Entering Europe ‘Needs to be Reduced’, Davos Hears

CNBC: Migrants Not to Blame for Sex Attacks: Swedish PM

Foreign Policy: Davos Diary: Europe Fears ‘Brexit’ But Not At ‘Any Price

The Telegraph: Davos Leaders Fear ‘Brexit’ May be Deathknell for EU

International Business Times: Davos 2016: Greece Promised New IMF Loans At Meeting With Lagarde And Tsipras

The Market Mogul: Worries in Davos 2016

The Guardian: IMF Demands EU Debt Relief for Greece Before New Bailout

Quartz: #Davosproblems: The Financial Crisis isn‘t Over, and the Inequality Crisis is Just Beginning

The Guardian: Embrace Feminism to Improve Decision-Making, says Justin Trudeau

Deutsche Welle: Davos, we Have a Gender Problem

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What are the Major Takeaways from the 2016 World Economic Forum? appeared first on Law Street.

Natalie Allman, a 29-year-old mother of two, is a victim of domestic abuse. In 2012 the Hereford, England native was beaten with a dumbbell and had her throat slashed by her then-fiance Jason Hughes, 42. His reason for assaulting the mother of his children–he wanted to make her look ugly as a punishment for breaking up with him.

The savage attack lasted for seven hours in the couple’s home in Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire, with both of their young twin sons watching. Luckily Allman survived the attack and found justice when her ex, a former territorial army soldier, was sentenced to nine years in prison for the attack. Unfortunately, this justice has strings attached.

She is being forced to send her abuser letters in jail with updates on their five-year-old twin boys, and if she doesn’t comply she could end up in jail.

Mum whose ex cut her throat ordered to WRITE to him in prison #NatalieAllman #Britain http://t.co/fs0A0EDeZ7 pic.twitter.com/PNfnts9LTw

— Trending UK News (@UKolizer) February 14, 2015

In January, Hughes applied for a residence and contact order requesting six letters a year as well as phone calls with updates on his children in accordance with the United Kingdom’s Children Act of 1989. Allman, who still bears a visible scar along her throat from the attack, fought back, spending £3,000 in legal fees. However, a judge still ordered her to send him three letters a year on their school progress, health, and emotional development. If she doesn’t comply, she could face a fine or jail time.

The act was designed to make the best arrangements for children after their parents split up, but in this case, the judge’s decision sounds like it’s more for the benefit of the abuser than his children. It’s textbook re-victimization. Distraught after the ruling, Allman told the Sunday People:

We are the victims, not him. I thought he was going to kill me that night for no reason and my boys saw that.

They were terrified. I’m so angry that the law still defends his parental rights and that he is still being allowed to control us from behind bars.

As far as I’m concerned he gave up the right to contact with any of us the night he attacked me but the court doesn’t see it that way.

What about our rights to get on with our lives and forget the trauma he put us through? As long as we are in constant contact how are we going to do that?

For her safety, the letters he writes go to Allman’s father’s home so that Hughes does not know her new address.

A change.org petition asking the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State Justice Chris Grayling to review the contact order has been started in Allman’s name. In the petition, her supporters claim this order will only perpetuate revictimization stating:

This is nothing more than psychological torture that prolongs the suffering of an abuse victim and her traumatised children. Every birthday a card arrives, and every letter she receives is a cruel reminder of the control he continues to assert over her behind bars.

As of this morning over 18,500 supporters have electronically signed the online petition. They need only 6,500 more to reach their goal of 25,000. Hopefully Grayling listens to the public outcry for this woman. She didn’t survive almost being killed to relive that torture for the rest of her life.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post English Abuse Victim Forced to Write Letters to Her Jailed Attacker appeared first on Law Street.

India has long been an important nation on the international stage; its massive population and rapidly growing economy have the potential to propel it forward even further. While there have been ebbs and flows–the recent recession strongly impacted the sub-continent–things may be looking up. There’s a new Prime Minister and India is on the rise yet again. Read on to learn about India’s growth, the relationships it has with other nations, and the challenges that the country will face in coming years.

A Look Into the Past

Like China and Mesopotamia, India is often considered one of the birthplaces of civilization. The first civilization in India was founded over five thousand years ago. Since then, India saw the rise and fall of countless empires, invading forces, and ideas. Buddhism and Hinduism were also founded in India; and Islam, when it reached the area in the eighth century, came to exert a powerful influence, as well.

The story of modern India however, picks up at the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the declining Mughal Empire was conquered piecemeal by the British East India Company. The British outcompeted their French rivals and bit by bit took over the sub-continent. Yet British rule was not to last either, with a large-scale mutiny in the middle of the nineteenth century hinting at the rise of Indian nationalism.

This came to fruition after years of protest that featured leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi when India finally achieved independence in 1947. This independence, however, did not come about smoothly. The same year India became independent, it also broke into two separate nations, Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. As many as 12.5 million people migrated to one country or the other depending on their religion. Up to one million people died in the ensuing chaos.

Rise of Modern India

After the end of colonial rule, India initially adopted a planned economic approach. The idea was to increase consumer savings, which would then lead to greater investment in the economy and growth. The plan was to create a prosperous India that was financed by its own economy and not beholden to outside forces.

While the plan had some success, however, growth remained limited in India at an average of four percent annually in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The plan was also plagued by unbridled population growth and inequality. The proverbial corner was turned beginning in the late 80s and early 90s when the economy was finally opened up. Growth shot up to over 6.5 percent annually, while the service sector in particular began to take off.

Move to a Market Economy

The key to the turn-around for India economically was when it moved from a series of five-year plans, as part of a planned economy adopted from its then-ally, the Soviet Union, to a market economy, which is similar to those of Western nations. Originally India adopted a socialist model as the means to improve its economy. This meant most industry, licensing, and investment infrastructure was controlled by the government. The whole idea behind this logic was to build strong home-grown industries in India, and in the process prevent the inequality notorious in capitalist societies from spreading there.

The planned economy proved ineffective. This was mainly due to low growth rates and the failure to generate high savings rates. In fact the state, far from succeeding in building up savings, actually began running up higher and higher deficits as its programs proved ineffective. Thus, spurred by this ineffectiveness and a rise of the price of oil as a result of the first gulf war which nearly caused the country to default, India made a change. The government did a complete 180, reducing state control and planning, liberalizing trade and investment, and reducing the deficit.

Following the success from the 1990s and with continued reforms, the Indian economy continued to hum along in the first decade of the 2000s, averaging greater than six percent growth annually. Rapid growth stalled, however, as it did in much of the rest of the world, following the Great Recession.

The reason that India was hit so hard was because of a failure to further liberalize policy concerning labor, energy, land reform, and infrastructure improvement. Namely the issue was in many ways the same that had been affecting India during its planned economy, despite the reforms the country had enacted in the past two decades. First labor laws were still very restrictive so it made it hard for people to move around in search of jobs.  Secondly, the infrastructure was not adequately developed in India so that its manufacturers could easily export their products. Third, the country was still plagued by shortages in essential goods, such as energy. This was all compounded by the government’s vain effort to prop up the country’s currency, the Rupee.  Not only has this led to a higher deficit, but also inflation, which eats away at people’s savings and makes them poorer. This led to growth rates closer to four or five percent during the recession.

After the Recession

Nevertheless, India’s economy has rebounded in the last two years and in 2014 outpaced China for the first time. This was due to several improvements. First, both the manufacturing and financial sectors improved dramatically. In addition, new Prime Minister Modi and other political leaders have worked diligently to reduce debt. Lastly, the drop in the price of oil has dramatically helped India, as most of its import deficits were due to the importation of oil to fuel its growing need.

While India has seemingly regained its status as a rapidly growing emerging market, this also comes with caveats. First, the growth figures that show it outpacing China had to be recalculated due to some errors, so many economists are treating them with skepticism. Secondly, according to a New York Times study from 2011-2012, 30 percent of Indians still live in extreme poverty, which translates approximately to 363 million people. That is more people than live in the United States. Thus, although India may recoup its status as a major, up-and-coming economy, there is still room for improvement. The following video gives an outlook on the impact reforms could have on India’s economy.

India’s Friends and Enemies

Pakistan

When discussing international concerns for India, the discussion always starts with Pakistan. The two nations were founded at the same time when British rule in India ended; however, the division of the two countries was plagued by extreme violence and a persistently strong feeling of animosity. The situation has in no way improved by the three wars and ongoing proxy war being waged over Kashmir. The conflict in Kashmir stems back to the separation of India and Pakistan.

At the time of independence, there were 562 princely kingdoms that were independent from either country and could choose which one they wanted to join. Both countries therefore were eager to recruit these principalities–Kashmir was one of the most coveted. Pakistan seemed to have the upper hand, as 70 percent of the population was Muslim; however, at the time, the ruler was Hindu so India claimed the area on that argument and still occupies it to this day. Aside from the direct conflicts there, Pakistan has also waged a guerrilla campaign to free the territory from India and incorporate it into the Muslim state of Pakistan.

On top of all that, both countries possess nuclear weapons and flaunt their capabilities, an example of which was the corresponding nuclear tests during the 90s. The video below provides a summary of the two nations’ conflict.

Nonetheless, hopes for thawed relations came when Prime Minister Modi was elected last year–one of his campaign promises was to improve relations between the two countries; however, lately Modi’s speeches have been full of aggressive rhetoric and the Pakistani military continues to support anti-India terror groups so change has yet to come. An example of this is when he suggested Pakistan was, “waging a proxy war” in Kashmir. He has also canceled several meetings with Pakistani officials, including one potential rendezvous at the United Nations.

China

India’s other major neighbor in Asia is China. Like Pakistan, India also fought a brief war with China in 1962 and has since maintained a relatively tense border with the country in the Himalayas. Tthe relationship with China has steadily improved in other areas as the countries have signed a number of trade agreements. The relationship was tested in 2013 with a Chinese incursion into Indian territory; however, no apparent serious harm came of it.

The lack of consternation may be rooted in how the countries view each other. In India, China is seen as a chief rival and also a source of emulation economically. For China, which is stronger militarily and economically, India is not regarded as much of a rival.

United States

Like its relationship with both Pakistan and China, India’s relationship with the U.S. is complicated. The countries originally shared strong ties, with the U.S. aiding India during the conflict with China. Relations were strained following America’s decision to side with Pakistan in its 1971 war with India. Things were further exacerbated by an arms treaty signed between India and the USSR and India’s testing of nuclear weapons in the 70s.

Relations seemed to be improving in the 1990s as India opened up its economy and moved to a free market approach. But once again ties between the nations weakened in 1998 when India again tested nuclear weapons, which drew condemnation and sanctions from the U.S. The sanctions were quickly repealed though and the two nations became close once more over a commitment to combat terrorism. The two sides have continued to grow closer since then, signing everything from trade to weapons agreements. In 2013 an Indian delegate was arrested for committing visa fraud, causing major waves. The two sides have seemed to yet again overcome this hiccup though, following the president’s recent trip to India where he reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to friendship.

The relationship with the U.S. also seems likely to continue to improve, despite numerous setbacks, many of which were over nuclear policy that now seem settled. While the U.S. may want to utilize India against a rising China, the two sides also value each other as trade partners. The relationship is further enhanced by the U.S.’s further distancing itself from Pakistan.

Domestic Concerns for India

While India navigates the dangerous game of international politics, it has internal issues to consider, as well. First and foremost is the status of women. While seemingly no country in the world can boast of total equality between men and woman, the situation is especially bad in India. While some women may enjoy access to lucrative lifestyles, there is a virtually systemic oppression of women in education, marriage, and the economy. A grisly example was the gang-rape of a woman by six men in Delhi in 2013 that resulted in the woman’s death. While four of the men were eventually sentenced to death, their crime highlighted a culture where women are often blamed for rape and where the courts are slow to act.

Women, of course, are not the only group to be institutionally marginalized in India. The caste system has existed for a long time. In this system people are born into and can expect to rise no further than a particular caste or class, which is often associated with some type of profession. While some efforts have succeeded at down-playing caste origins in jobs, castes still play a large role in social interactions and romantic relationships.

The persistence of discrimination, both against women and people of lower classes, speaks to the issue of inequality in the country. According to a report from the United Nations – Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP), income inequality actually increased in India from the 1990s to late 2000s.

India’s population is the second largest in the world at more than 1.2 billion people. With birth rates still outpacing death rates, that number is only going to continue to increase until it is expected to plateau in 2050. The population of India is also expected to surpass that of China for the world’s largest along the way, in 2025. All these extra people mean more food, housing, and jobs for a country that is already hard pressed to generate them at current levels. The accompanying video highlights the issues with poverty in India.

Domestically, though changes have been made incrementally, the sweeping changes necessary to fix many of India’s societal ills seem unlikely. As the infamous Delhi rape trial showed, while courts can be forced into action when thrust into the spotlight, they have been very slow to protect women. This also speaks to a problem of institutionalized marginalization for a large chunk of society, which has lasted for many years and thus is unlikely to simply go away now. Couple these issues with continued population explosion and the poverty that haunts India is likely to continue. Particularly with inequality rising and wealth being consolidated into the hands of the elites, much as it is in western nations.

Conclusion

After initially struggling following independence, India has enjoyed strong recent growth. While that growth was threatened by the great recession, India was able to pull through and even outpace China, if the numbers are to be believed. Going forward, Asia’s other potential superpower has many issues to deal with. Internationally, serious issues still exist concerning the relationship between India and Pakistan. India’s relationship with Asia’s affirmed rising super power is also in question as India moves closer to fellow democracy in the United States, while China seemingly drifts closer to fellow autocrat Russia.

Domestically it is more of the same, with concern over the economy dominating. Yet other issues also exist, namely an entrenched class system and the low status of women. Thus, while India has come very far, there is still a long way to go. Therefore while it is still possible for India to act on its superpower potential and one day rival China as Asia’s premier power, reforms and improvements are likely required along the way.

Resources

Primary 

Indian Embassy: U.S.-India Relations

Additional

Forbes: India Growth Now Beats China

Diplomat: India and Pakistan: A Debilitating Relationship

National Interest: China and India: The End of Cold Peace?

Council on Foreign Relations: Timeline U.S.-India Relations

Centre for Economic Policy Research: India’s Growth in the 2000s: Four Facts

Economist: How India Got Its Funk

BBC News: India Growth Figures Baffle Economists

The New York Times: Setting a High Bar for Poverty in India

Asia Society: India-Pakistan Relations: A 50-Year History

Saarthak: Women’s Situation in India

World Post: India Gang Rape Case: Four Men Sentenced to Death

Economist: Why Caste Still Matters in India

Financial Express: Income Inequality: Poor-Rich Gap Growing in India, Asia-Pacific

International Business Times: Partition of India and Pakistan: The Rape of Women on an Epic, Historic Scale

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post India: A Superpower on the Rise? appeared first on Law Street.

The disasters involving the cruise ship Costa Concordia in 2012 and the ferries Norman Atlantic and Sewol in 2014 all have one thing in common: they were recent sea disasters in which lives were lost. While the Costa Concordia and the Sewol disasters were caused by human error and the Norman Atlantic is still under review, there is one question that’s looked at very closely anytime a disaster happens on the high seas: was the ship in full compliance with the  Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)? Read on to learn a basic understanding of SOLAS, what led to its creation, and what else exists in terms of safety for cruise passengers.

What is SOLAS?

SOLAS is a comprehensive set of rules that guide all cruise ships, cargo ships, oil tankers, and even the small boats that sit in marinas around the world. This document, which has been used for more than 100 years in a few different versions, has been generally regarded as the most important of all international treaties concerning the safety of merchant ships; however, SOLAS in its current state is actually a fairly recent product, given that it just entered into force in 1980.

What existed before SOLAS?

Before SOLAS was conceived, nations had rulemaking bodies pertaining to the high seas, though each nation operated independently of others. One of the better known lawmaking bodies was the British Board of Trade. It maintained standards for British shipping with legal updates until the last decade of the nineteenth century. While the technology had improved and the ships had gotten larger, no updating of the rules was undertaken until SOLAS.

The Ill fated R.M.S. Titanic. Image courtesy of Cliff via Flickr

Why the Change?

The main factor in the change to SOLAS was the disaster in which Royal Mail Steamer (RMS) Titanic sank. To explain why it turned into such a disaster, it’s important to know that the British used a very complex set of rules to determine how many lifeboats a ship needed. This formula is as follows: any ship over 10,000 tons must carry 16 lifeboats with a capacity of 5,500 cubic feet of space plus enough rafts and floats to equal 75 percent of the lifeboat capacity. This was based on the assumption that a human being needed ten feet of cubic space.

Now let’s apply this formula to the Titanic. The Titanic weighed in at a massive 46,000 tons, putting her well over the 10,000 ton mark. This meant that to be certified, she needed at least 16 lifeboats. The Titanic was equipped with 16 lifeboats able to carry 65 people each, meaning that she could carry a total of 1,040 people. Titanic’s owner, the White Star Line, showed that they had done better than minimum requirements by adding four collapsible boats, each able to hold 47 people. That gave the Titanic enough space to rescue 1,178 people.

Now let’s take a look at Titanic’s total passenger number. About 700 people survived the sinking, while roughly 1,500 died. That makes a grand total of approximately 2,200 passengers and crew, meaning that even if the rescue boats were filled to capacity, people were going to die. The only way they could have been saved was if another ship was close enough to the Titanic that she could perform a rescue attempt.

That led to the second problem behind the Titanic’s sinking. According to various reports from survivors, they could make out the lights of a ship on the horizon, and data tells us that was correct. That ship was the liner Californian, and she suffered two misfortunes. The first was that her officers misread Titanic’s visual calls and the second was that at 11:30pm, ten minutes before the Titanic hit the iceberg, the Californian’s only wireless operator, shut down the ship’s wireless communications device and went to bed. This meant that the Californian had no clue what was going on with other ships outside of where officers could see from the ship’s bridge.

SOLAS’ Inception

SOLAS was created as a response to issues from the Titanic disaster. The deaths of more than 1,500 passengers and crew raised many questions about the safety standards that were in force at that time. To answer those questions, delegates from Europe and America met to create worldwide standards. The work of these delegates led to the adoption of the first SOLAS convention on January 20, 1914, although it never entered into force due to World War I.

A second edition came out in 1933 in response to a number of ships that were catching on fire. The results lead to some 60 articles on ship construction, lifesaving equipment, fire prevention, and fire fighting, wireless telegraphy equipment, navigation aids, and rules to prevent collisions.

The third, fourth, and current fifth editions were made in response to changes in the shipping industry. The third edition was designed to update the 1933 convention, which had been overtaken by technical developments. The fourth edition was another update, though it also represented a change in leadership. Up until that point, Great Britain had been taking the leading role in the conventions. After this point the creation of SOLAS and all other international sea-related law was put under control of the United Nations through an agency called the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The current SOLAS regulations were introduced into force in 1980; however, due to the voting process that was implemented with the law, these regulations are more flexible to changes in shipping than any of the previous conventions. It is also predicted that these regulations will not be replaced by newer standards anytime soon, due to a process known as Tacit Acceptance Procedure (TAP).

How does TAP work?

In short TAP works in the following manner: an amendment shall enter into force on a specified date unless, before that date, objections to the amendment are received from an agreed number of parties. To explain this, here is a hypothetical situation. An amendment has been passed using knowledge learned from the Costa Concordia disaster, stating that cruise ships should not get within 70 feet of any shoreline that is not a port, unless in an emergency situation. The member states of the IMO have a designated period of time to state any objections that they have. IMO currently has 170 member nations and a number needed to stop a motion is agreed upon by the member nations. For this example we will say that only 40 need to state an objection in that amount of time. If that number is reached, the amendment does not pass. If only 30 have issues, the amendment becomes law.

So, who do shipping companies answer to?

Despite the IMO making the rules, they have no direct control over the implementation of them. That role falls on the shoulders of the member governments. Most governments do take this role very seriously and do their best to keep their own companies in line; however, there is another method to keeping another nations’ members in check. Member governments can also put pressure on each other by inspecting foreign ships that visit their ports to ensure that they meet IMO standards. If they do not they can be detained until repairs are carried out. This will cost a company more money than if they do it right in the first place.

Is SOLAS the highest standard in the ship industry?

No, the main objective of the SOLAS Convention is to specify minimum standards for the construction, equipment, and operation of ships; member nations are encouraged to go above and beyond these regulations. Though a prime example is not in service today, there is one example from history that illustrates this point. That ship is the ocean liner S.S. United States, pictured below. Entering into Trans-Atlantic service in 1952, the United States, which was formerly owned by the United States Lines, was built to a high standard of fire proofing, which has yet to be surpassed by any ship. Her designer, William Francis Gibbs, was paranoid about the United States catching on fire due to having witnessed or read about several fires on other ships throughout the course of his life. As a result, the United States was made from materials that would not burn and carried no products made from wood except for a fireproof piano and the breadbox, which was far higher a standard than the SOLAS convention laws in place at the time.

The S.S. United States. Image courtesy of Stewart Clamen via Flickr.

Are there other documents that ships have to follow in addition to SOLAS?

The short answer is yes, because in addition to IMO requirements, every ship operates under the maritime laws of a specific country, referred to as the ship’s flag state. For example, the United States does have other documents that American-owned shipping companies are required to follow and are enforced by the United States Coast Guard. The most recent act is the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010. This added several new passenger rights laws that help in cases of theft and rape on board ship. The laws, however, do not give any directions for what to do in the event of a ship disaster. Some European  nations, such as the Netherlands, on the other hand, follow the code of laws laid out in Lloyd’s Register. Despite the differences the unique law sets are designed to work with each other to help further safety on board for passengers and crew.

So, what happened to the recent boat disasters?

Costa Concordia

The Costa Concordia was a cruise ship that ran aground on an undersea hazard after sailing too close to the coast of Giglio Island near Italy, causing a gash in her hull and the ship to tip over. The Costa Concordia herself did not suffer from any SOLAS violations, other than the debatable issue of crew training; however, what is clear is that this disaster, which claimed 32 lives, was due to human error on the part of her captain. The video below explains how the Costa Concordia was wrecked.

Sewol

The Sewol was a South Korean Ferry that capsized and sank, taking the lives of 300 people with it. This disaster could have been prevented if the Sewol had not undergone an illegal redesign and was not carrying significantly more cargo than it was designed to accommodate. In addition, the Sewol’s owner skimped on safety features to save money.

Conclusion

SOLAS is a set of laws to help to keep people safe on ships. Through international cooperation these laws are kept up to date and nations are tasked with making sure that everyone is kept safe while traveling on the high seas. While disasters can still happen under these laws–often due to human error–SOLAS seeks to help ensure that there will never be another Titanic disaster situation.

Resources

Primary

IMO: SOLAS

IMO: History of SOLAS

IMO: List of Conventions

US Congress: Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act of 2010

UN: International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

Additional

David Allen Butler: Unsinkable

Titanic Facts: Titanic Lifeboats 

SS United States: Conservancy

Daily Mail: Titanic Needed 50% More Lifeboats

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Safety on the High Seas: Who Makes the Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

Prince Andrew, Duke of York, is a member of British royalty and currently fifth in the line of succession to the throne. He’s the third child of Queen Elizabeth II, and has long been the source of frustration for the royals. His actions regularly provide fodder for the tabloids, but the most recent scandal involving the Prince may go further than just making the royal family look bad. He was just named in a lawsuit filed in Florida that alleges he had sex with an underage girl.

Prince Andrew really has been a familiar face in the tabloids. His relationship with ex-wife Sarah Ferguson has faced plenty of scandal–especially when her constant debt problems are taken into account. At one point he was accused of accepting a gift from a Libyan gun smuggler. He took a $5,000 helicopter ride for 50 miles. He’s been tied to shady people multiple times, including the corrupt president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

But one particularly dark mark on Prince Andrew’s biography has been his friendship with American businessman Jeffrey Epstein, who pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from an underage girl in 2008. The FBI allegedly linked him to about 40 other young women, many of whom were minors. In 2011, Epstein’s friendship with the Prince came under scrutiny after the media took pictures of the men together. There were many rumors that Prince Andrew was involved in inappropriate behavior at Epstein’s house. A 2011 Vanity Fair article stated:

According to a sworn deposition by Juan Alessi, a former employee at Epstein’s Palm Beach estate, Andrew attended naked pool parties and was treated to massages by a harem of adolescent girls.

There were also rumors that Prince Andrew had sexual contact with an underage girl who had been groomed as a prostitute by Epstein. The girl in question was 17 years old at the time and now lives in Australia. She claims to have been sexually exploited by Epstein beginning at the age of 15.

While there is a lot still unclear about Prince Andrew’s involvement with Epstein’s victims, what we do know is that there is now a civil suit against the United States government with regard to the way that federal prosecutors handled Epstein’s case. The suit argues that when the Florida prosecutors worked out a plea deal with Epstein, they violated victims’ rights laws by not talking to Epstein’s victims about the deal. Those victims’ lawyers claim that Epstein got an easy deal from the prosecution–pleading guilty to just one charge–because of his wealth and connections.

It is within the parameters of this lawsuit that Prince Andrew was named, after two of Epstein’s other victims joined the two who originally filed the suit. It’s important to note that no legal action is being taken against Prince Andrew, rather this suit just names him as part of the plaintiffs’ collection of evidence that Epstein basically organized a sex trafficking ring of underage women for his wealthy friends. He has denied the allegations.

Prince Andrew wasn’t the only famous man mentioned in these court documents. Alan Dershowitz, a well known, former Harvard Law professor and criminal defense attorney, was also named. He has also completely denied the allegations, saying:

I’m planning to file disbarment charges against the two lawyers who signed this petition without even checking the manifests of airplanes or travel itineraries, et cetera. I’m also challenging the young woman and the lawyers to level those charges against me outside of the courtroom, so that I can sue them for defamation…Finally, I’m challenging the woman to file criminal charges against me because the filing of false criminal charges is a crime.

This case is still ongoing. It will be interesting to see if Dershowitz follows through on his legal threats, or if Prince Andrew ends up playing a larger part. For right now though, it’s only the U.S. government that is facing legal action for its handling of the case.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prince Andrew Accused of Sex With Minor in American Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

The bone-chilling, stomach-churning sounds of a knife tearing through human flesh followed by the camera panning over a decapitated corpse lying in a pool of the blood that once sustained it played on the screen. Yet, following this savage montage of brutality, no credits rolled. Those nauseating and disturbing sounds were not fabricated in a Hollywood studio. Those haunting images, permanently tattooed into the viewer’s mind, were not created with fake blood and body parts.

The most recent video released by the Muslim extremist group ISIS is a jarring demonstration of the sheer brutality going on in the Middle East today. Immediately after viewing this heinous, offensive act, it took awhile for the feeling to return to my numbed face. I felt as if I had received a massive blow to my gut. Once I could wrap my mind around what I had just seen and the revelation that yes, this was real, I was overcome by a tidal wave of emotion. Rage, sadness, and helplessness were just the tip of the iceberg of what I felt.

After discovering more about the man who was mercilessly slaughtered for all to see as a warning to the United States and its allies, I became even more outraged. Alan Henning was a father of two and dedicated husband from England who had traveled to Syria to partake in aid work. The injustice of his death astounded me. I simply cannot imagine the depth of grief his family is feeling right now, and will continue to feel for the remainder of their lives. I was struck with the revelation that this is exactly how ISIS wanted the viewers of this murder to feel.

Then the questions began swirling dizzyingly in my mind. Why is ISIS committing these unforgivable acts of barbaric violence? In a recent article, Britain’s Telegraph provided insights into the psychological motivation for such public brutality. First on the list is the dissuasive power of fear. One of the reasons the Iraqi people have withheld from engaging ISIS in battle, the article purports, is the sheer element of extreme violence utilized by ISIS fighters. The article makes the insightful inquiry, “which poorly paid soldier wishes to risk decapitation, impalement, or amputation for the sake of a distant, crumbling government? Fear is a uniquely effective weapon.”

Additionally, the members of the Islamic state feel that the United States and its allies will be equally deterred from engaging in militant action against them if it means its citizens will meet such an abhorrent fate. But honestly, I cannot imagine that its enemies ceasing their attempts at military interference would halt ISIS’ streak of terror.

The last point made by the author of the article explains why the murder of an individual rather than a large population affects us so much. Selecting a single person via a methodical, calculated process produces a means of propaganda not likely to be forgotten, which is the nature of terrorist acts. With the detonation of a bomb, the deaths are numerous and quick and lack a specific individual target. Although deaths by any means of violence are horrific, acts of beheading are chilling and terrifying in that they are a complete desecration of the body by the hand of another human.

However, when addressing the effectiveness or lack thereof of these acts, the article points out that they often backfire entirely. When my eyes beheld the merciless slaughter of an innocent man by the ISIS executioner, I was anything but turned to sympathy for their cause. It merely deepened the chasm of my anger and hatred for their “cause,” if you can even call it that. It made me realize the gravity of the challenge imposed by the extremist group in terms of its defeat. By demonstrating the lack of humanity possessed by its members, ISIS has hurled coals into the already blazing fire of animosity and antipathy bore by its enemies.

Has ISIS learned nothing from its predecessors? Engaging in brutal violence that clearly knows no bounds was one of the major downfalls of al-Qaeda. I desire one thing to be the response to the question posed by the article in the Telegraph, “the modern jihadist’s dilemma: when does a strategy of calibrated terror turn into a self-defeating orgy of violence?” I hope that their “strategy” brings about their downfall before anyone else falls victim to it. No child should have to lose a parent, no one should have to lose a dedicated friend, and no innocent person should perish at the hands of hate.

Watching the brutal killing of this man grounded, humbled, outraged, and upset me in ways I never could have imagined. I would never wish my worst enemy to see the video. The menacing voice of the executioner, the sounds of the beheading itself, and the final words of the victim will forever echo in my mind. The images I beheld are forever seared into my retinas. Now, my passionate desire to see the end of violence in the Middle East is stronger than it ever was.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS: The Mentality of Madness appeared first on Law Street.