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:

Trump is “Thankful” to Putin for Expelling U.S. Diplomats From Russia

Late last month, President Vladimir Putin decided to expel 775 U.S. diplomats and staffers from the U.S. Embassy and consulates in Russia. Yesterday, President Donald Trump commented on that decision for the first time. Trump said that he is very thankful to Putin for helping him cut down the payroll and that it was great that he let “a large number of people” go. “There’s no real reason for them to go back. I greatly appreciate the fact that we’ve been able to cut our payroll of the United States. We’re going to save a lot of money,” he said. Some people thought it was a way to troll Putin.

I get it! Trump’s using reverse psychology on Putin … as some 2nd grade teachers do. Certain to work on a KGB trained killler/dictator. https://t.co/J6v5HY3h06

— Ronald Klain (@RonaldKlain) August 11, 2017

But Trump was not clear on whether he was actually joking, and a lot of people were baffled that the president took the increased tensions with Russia so lightly, as well as hundreds of people losing their jobs. Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul was not entertained and pointed out that the diplomatic staff in Russia provides the U.S. with invaluable information about the country, which is an incredibly important function.

Imagine wanting to know less about Russia’s military modernization! That’s what Trump praised today. https://t.co/qMorkknjhU

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 10, 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: August 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

More than 28 years have passed since the worst tragedy in British sports history occurred at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, England. Poor logistical planning and police negligence led to an overcrowded supporters’ section that killed 96 Liverpool supporters–including 37 teenagers–and injured over 700 fans. Friends and families of the victims received the bittersweet news on Wednesday that British prosecutors have finally charged six people for the tragedy, following years of media scrutiny and victim blaming. It comes as a surprise to many that an event that supposedly rocked the world of soccer took over a quarter century to resolve. So how did we get from that terrible tragedy of the Hillsborough disaster to the prosecution today?

What Happened in Hillsborough?

English soccer in the 1980s was marked by frequent hooliganism and alcoholism. In order to try to curb incidents–the key word here is “try”–the English Football Association (the FA) called for strong police presence at every match, segregated fan bases, and high steel fencing between the fans and the pitch. All of these factors came into play with this disaster.

The 1989 F.A. Cup semifinal match between Nottingham Forest and Liverpool was one of the most anticipated matches of that season. The FA selected Hillsborough Stadium as a neutral location in which to host it. One week after the host stadium was chosen, the Police Chief Superintendent–who had supervised this type of match the year before–was transferred from his division for a lack of institutional control over hazing. He was replaced by newly promoted Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield who had no experience overseeing a sold out soccer match and reportedly mispronounced one of the team names repeatedly during his pre-match press conference.

The day of the match began as any other and the opposing supporters were segregated into their own respective sides of the stadium. Despite having a larger projected attendance, Liverpool supporters were given the side with less capacity and thus were relegated to a smaller entrance, less turnstiles, and fewer gate options once inside the stadium. As the size of the crowd grew, Duckenfield decided to open an exit gate to relieve pressure–and prevent a potential crush, ironically–from the turnstiles. Thousands of supporters began to spill into the stadium and into the nearest entrance which was a tunnel that led to an already overcrowded pair of sections. As a result, a bottleneck effect was created and those coming into the stadium began to crush those already in the stands against the steel fence, but they did not realize it.

Police officers showed their lack of guidance and experience from the very beginning of the match. A BBC report found that officers were not in the right locations to direct fans away from overcrowded seating areas. They also initially tried to prevent trapped fans from escaping through the fence–fearing pitch invaders. Once the match was stopped to help people escape the crush, officers began to focus more on keeping the peace than keeping people alive. They reportedly chose to not give CPR to potential crush victims and left that job to the fans so “they would not take out their frustration on the police.”

Worst of all were the actions toward the victims once emergency services began to arrive at the stadium. Forty-four ambulances arrived and police only allowed one into the stadium. Supporters took it upon themselves to bring those who needed assistance out to the vehicles, but they were only allowed to leave through the Liverpool side as officers never communicated the situation to Nottingham Forest supporters and blocked their exits from being used.

The Aftermath

As news began to spread about the tragedy that had occurred, and families began to wonder if their loved ones who left for the game would ever come home, the police–along with many media outlets–thought it would be best to immediately finding a group to blame for the incident at hand. Officials agreed that this disaster was the fault of the Liverpool fans attending the match, and disseminated that story to the press. The Daily Star, Daily Mail, Daily Express, and the Evening Standard all perpetuated the story published by The Sun’s Kelvin Mackenzie that the “unruly” Liverpool fans robbed corpses, urinated on police officers, and beat up those attempting to give CPR to victims. Duckenfield also blamed the tragedy on the fans for “forcing the gate open” that eventually led to the crush, and then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s press secretary Bernard Ingham attributed the tragedy to a “tanked-up mob of Liverpool supporters.”

This image of drunk and rowdy fans causing their own deaths seemed to affect how the coroners dealt with the bodies. In an unprecedented move, the coroner in charge decided to test the blood-alcohol level of every victim, even the underage ones, to pinpoint alcohol as the cause. They even ruled the times of death at nine minutes after the match had ended because that was when the crush had supposedly stopped, which ruled out the idea that any of the 96 could have possibly been saved. The findings that all deaths were accidental were upheld by a Divisional Court ruling.

In 1989, a report of an inquiry which was overseen by Lord Justice Taylor–known as the Taylor Inquiry–which investigated the disaster, blamed a “failure of police control” and found that the police had wrongly tried to shift blame onto the fans. But a subsequent investigation in 1997–conducted by Labour party officials–supported the conclusion that the deaths were accidental, and no criminal charges were filed.

Grieving families  left with no justice and few answers chose to respond. In 1998 they filed a civil lawsuit against the South Yorkshire Police. While the case eventually led to a deadlocked jury, it was enough to inspire those involved in the lawsuits to create a Hillsborough Family Support Group, led by a man who lost two teenage daughters in the tragedy.

Review and Justice Today

After years of fighting, the families of the 96 victims of Hillsborough received their first bit of justice in 2009–the 20th anniversary of the disaster–when the British government created a committee known as the Hillsborough Independent Panel to look into what had happened on that fateful April afternoon. In 2012, the group published its findings.

The report was rather damning. It claimed that many of the victims who were declared dead not even 20 minutes after the crushing might have survived if they had received swift medical attention. Autopsy findings showed there were 41 victims who did not have the traumatic asphyxia that caused most of the deaths, and Dr. Bill Kirkup, a physician on the panel, said they might have survived if they been taken to a hospital quickly enough.

The report also found that the police had amended 116 witness statements “to remove or alter comments unfavorable to the police,” and that officers conducted background checks on those who had died–even the children–in an attempt “to impugn the reputations of the deceased.” In addition, the report said the blood-alcohol levels that the coroner controversially measured were “unremarkable and not exceptional for a social or leisure occasion.”

These findings led to the British High Court reversing the accidental death ruling for the victims in 2012, setting the stage for a new investigation and possible criminal charges that came in 2014. In April 2016, the jury involved in the case determined that the 96 fans were unlawfully killed due to decisions made by police officers and “gross negligence” from Chief Duckenfield.

Following the April 2016 inquest, prosecutors were given the opportunity to decide whether to file criminal charges, and on Wednesday, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would.

Among those charged are David Duckenfield, who will face manslaughter by gross negligence charges; Graham Henry Mackrell, the secretary and safety officer for club that played in Hillsborough at the time, who faces charges of failing to carry out health and safety duties; Peter Metcalf, the lawyer acting for South Yorkshire Police, who is charged with perverting justice relating to changes made to witness statements; and three other former high-ranking police officers: Norman Bettison, Donald Denton, and Alan Foster.

The victims’ families expressed relief at the decision. Barry Devonside, whose 18-year-old son Christopher died, told Sky News that the families had applauded when they learned that “the most senior police officer on that particular day will have charges presented to him.”

“I was frightened, absolutely frightened, that we were going to be let down again,” he added.

The defendants, with the exception of Duckenfield, will appear at Warrington magistrates court on August 9, according to The Guardian.

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 Breaking Down the Hillsborough Disaster Prosecution appeared first on Law Street.

Apparently, someone lost their luggage, and they’re probably pretty upset about it. Bags that washed up on two beaches in Norfolk on England’s east coast turned out to contain almost 800 pounds of cocaine, worth more than $60 million. A member of the public found the drugs, packed in colorful North Face bags.

The National Crime Agency deals with organized crime in the UK, and responded to the find. “This is obviously a substantial seizure of class A drugs and its loss will represent a major blow to the organized criminals involved,” said Matthew Rivers from the NCA border investigation team. He added that the place where the bags showed up was most likely not the intended destination–they were found outside two small towns with a couple of thousand people each, Hopton-on-Sea and Caister-on-Sea. The NCA is working with the coastguard to try to determine where the drugs were supposed to go.

Investigation after £50m cocaine found on Norfolk beaches > https://t.co/ieKU1kGOku pic.twitter.com/GT6PoGYkCW

— Norfolk Police (@NorfolkPolice) February 10, 2017

This is not the first time drugs on the loose ended up on a beach in the British Isles. In October, a torpedo-like device with over $5 million of cocaine inside was found stranded on a beach in Western Ireland and was believed to have been there for weeks or months before anyone noticed. There was another similar incident in 2008. And the biggest cocaine seizure in the UK was water related as well–three tons in 2015, worth over $620 million, found in a ship off the coast of Scotland. That seizure led to the arrest of two Turkish nationals.

Drug trafficking to the United Kingdom is estimated to cost law enforcement £10.7 billion a year, which is about $13.3 billion. The amount of cocaine imported every year is believed to be somewhere between 25-30 tons. And though it’s not very likely that someone will come forward to claim this most recent case of lost drugs, the NCA took the opportunity to have some fun with it.

And you thought your missing luggage was bad… If anyone wants to claim it, we’re keeping it safe for you https://t.co/SVrrG8t30p

— NationalCrimeAgency (@NCA_UK) February 10, 2017

Soon there were a bunch of jokes about the drug find, with some saying they should make a version of the show “Narcos,” and various members of the public suggesting that they could take care of the bags.

@EdmondBeech @NorfolkPolice Somewhere very safe. But the rightful owners can come and collect it anytime

— NationalCrimeAgency (@NCA_UK) February 10, 2017

But the NCA doesn’t take criminal activity lightly.

@EdmondBeech@NorfolkPolice Well not if you aren’t smuggling cocaine into Norfolk or involved in some other serious crime. Are you…?

— NationalCrimeAgency (@NCA_UK) February 10, 2017

Norfolk police urged members of the public to get in touch if they find anything suspicious…or this weird!

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 800 Pounds of Cocaine Wash up on English Coast appeared first on Law Street.

“I want to live and live longer and I think that in the future they may find a cure for my cancer and wake me up,” a 14-year-old British girl wrote to a judge before her recent death. She said “being cryopreserved gives me a chance to be cured and woken up–even in hundreds of years’ time.” The girl, whose name has not been released for legal reasons won a High Court case, granting her the right to freeze her body after she passed away recently from a rare form of cancer.

Judge Peter Jackson, the presiding judge in the case who specializes in the Family Division of Britain’s High Court, said the case represents a new precedent in the confrontation of science and law. “It is no surprise that this application is the only one of its kind to have come before the courts in this country–and probably anywhere else,” he said. Jackson added that the case is “an example of the new questions that science poses to the law.”

Jackson said his decision was not based on affirming the sound science of cryopreservation–there is not any–but rather on settling a family dispute. The girl’s mother supported her wish to freeze her body, but her father, initially at least, did not. The girl’s parents are divorced, and her father also has cancer. His views eventually shifted. “This is the last and only thing she has asked from me,” he told the judge. The procedure will cost the family 37,000 pounds, which is equivalent to $46,000.

Cryonics, which is an extreme type of cryopreservation, where the entire body is frozen with the hope that it will be re-animated at some point in the future once technology has advanced far enough to cure currently incurable diseases, like cancer. There is no evidence that the procedure could be successful, scientists say, though some still hold out hope.

The girl, whose remains were shipped to the U.S. to undergo the cryopreservation treatment, learned of the judge’s decision 11 days before she passed away, according to her lawyer Zoe Fleetwood. “It brought her great comfort,” Fleetwood told the Associated Press. “She saw this as a chance to be brought back at some stage in the future, but she knew it was speculative.”

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 High Court Grants Girl’s Wish to be Cryogenically Frozen 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.

In the Calais refugee camp known as “the Jungle,” 1,500 unaccompanied kids and teenagers are left roaming around on their own. As France and the UK are trying to decide who should do what, the kids are waiting impatiently. Without any adults around to supervise things or provide mental support and a sense of normalcy, many kids are confused, depressed, and frustrated. Boredom often leads to fights and there is often not enough food. The majority of the refugees are boys between 10 and 17 years old, who sleep in cold containers and don’t have drinking water except for when volunteers come to hand out bottles. But there are also around 30 unaccompanied girls, most under 15 but one as young as 12.

No one is allowed into these containers except for security police. But some volunteers work around the clock to provide the kids food–only one hot meal per day–and bottled water. Authorities have only handed out 20 passes in total for volunteers to enter the area, which is not enough considering the amount of help that is needed. Many volunteers hand the kids food through the fence instead.

Whilst the UK and France argue Children are thrown to the Wolves #Calais Write to your MP & Amber Rudd #refugeecommunitykitchen #OLSX pic.twitter.com/QMEPxn7t9I

— Refugee C Kitchen (@RefugeeCKitchen) October 30, 2016

“They’ve left them with no support whatsoever. They’ve just left these 1,500 kids since Friday and gone,” said volunteer Steve Bedlam. He also said the taps have been turned off and the only running water is in the toilets. “This has been confirmed by several of the kids. When we bring water in a truck it goes crazy. People are grabbing at it, like they want to get six bottles.”

Concerned about the children’s safety, the volunteers are now trying to keep some adults around outside of the camp all throughout the night. Lately they have been handing out food from 7 AM to 11 PM, and from the time they leave no grown ups have been present in the camp except for police. Bedlam said:

It’s dangerous. You’ve just literally got 1,500 kids going in and out, wandering around the old burnt out jungle as much as they want. There’s no control, no one stopping them leaving. Thank god for volunteers or it would literally be 1,500 kids sitting in a bombsite.

As winter gets closer and it gets cold, kids are asking the volunteers for shoes and blankets and when they can see their parents, who have often already arrived at their end destination. But there seems to be no information from authorities and no one really knows what is going on. If the kids are heading to other places in France or to the UK remains to be seen and many believe it is just a political problem that no one wants to take responsibility for. “There’s apparently some political system going on, but we have no idea what it is,” said Cecelia Bittner from volunteer organization Calais Kitchens.

#France has failed children in #Calais – @hrw‘s @MichaelBochenek https://t.co/k2P24782Q3 pic.twitter.com/mvcgYBFX1E

— Elaine Pearson (@PearsonElaine) October 31, 2016

France’s president Francois Hollande reportedly phoned Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May on Sunday to ask her to accept more refugee children, which she declined, saying that the UK already had accepted a “considerable number of unaccompanied minors.” The main problem and the most upsetting issue for the volunteers present in Calais is that both the French and British governments have just left these kids unaccompanied in a refugee camp without food and water, locked up and guarded by security police.

“The French government are basically leaving these kids and going ‘we’ve done our bit, come on do your bit’” said Bedlam. “But they’re messing with kids’ lives. It’s not fair. They’re pawns in a political game.”

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 1,500 Refugee Children Left on Their Own in the Calais “Jungle” 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.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that a large swath of the Pacific Ocean in British territory will be delineated for protection. Focusing around the Pitcairn Islands in the center of the South Pacific, this reserve will be larger than California and represents a very momentous step forward in conservation.

Beneath the unassuming Pitcairn Island lies an aquatic wonderland. Courtesy of Fotorus via Flickr.

The marine habitat in this region is a thriving and delicate ecosystem. Due to its remoteness, human impact has been minimal; scientists are under the impression that there exist here a substantial number of species yet to be discovered. Furthermore, there are coral reefs, submerged mountains, and water quality of a cleanliness difficult to match elsewhere on Earth.

Prior to the designation as a reserve, threats to the health of the place loomed as illegal fishing activity has been drawing near in recent years. Seafloor mining is also now out of the equation. Old fashioned, low-scale fishing by the 60 or so residents of Pitcairn Island itself, most widely known as the settlement site of the mutineers in Mutiny on the Bounty, will be permitted.

So why is protecting this region such a big deal? First of all, for the sake of the locals and for the British government, the pristine, beautiful region is now guaranteed to remain so, and tourism is expected to increase. The Pitcairn Island is so remote that it is not often that people venture down there. In fact, National Geographic Explorer Enric Sala pointed out that between boats and planes it takes most people longer to arrive there than at the Moon. But applying this protective title increases its appeal. Furthermore, the loss of about $30,000 per year in fishing licenses would be easily recovered by tourist revenue and the benefits of being designated an Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Palmyra Atoll in the Central Pacific. Courtesy of USFWS-Pacific Region/Jim Maragos via Flickr.

Anything that can be done to preserve the health of an ecosystem is desirable. Just because the region around the Pitcairn Island is remote does not mean that any damage it might suffer would not affect other areas on the planet. We have already seen how human beings themselves, in addition to both aquatic and land-bound biodiversity, face threats from accumulating plastic in the oceans. A complex chain of relationships means that even a slight disturbance can cover large geographic and biological distances.

It is more difficult to think of a distant and highly inaccessible portion of the ocean as needing protection from humans, or as being vulnerable to human activity, as it is to regard portions of the land such as rainforests or mountain ranges as such. While we more easily and often see the consequences of our actions on land, we are more detached from the oceans and conditions in the water, both geographically and mentally. For this former reason, the last century has seen the creation of a wealth of national parks, UNESCO biosphere reserves, and vocal conservation organizations. These policies have done many great things to advocate for the health of the land, but only just recently have these motivations extended to the seas.

Marine reserves are oceanic equivalents of national parks. They are protected areas, encourage people to come see their beauty, and make statements as to the importance of our environments. The new Pitcairn reserve represents one of the largest manifestations of that sentiment, spreading environmental awareness and conservation to the farthest corners, yet equally interconnected, portions of the globe.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Part of the Pacific is Being Legally Protected; Here’s Why It’s Important appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no gray area quite like international law. Historically speaking it’s a relatively new field, and every nation accepts various parts of it. But essentially there are a number of different treaties, measures, and conventions that mediate the ways in which our nations interact, both in war and peace. Nations have certain obligations, and despite the United States’ abysmal track record when it comes to international law, we’re held to them too. We don’t live in a vacuum. After the collective political hissy fit that 47 Senators just had in the form of a truly condescending letter to Iran, it’s time to remind Senate Republicans of that.

The United States has long been dismissive of international law, and understandably so. For example, we have refused to ratify the Rome Statute–the document that created the International Criminal Court–out of fear that our heads of state could ever be tried in an international court. In fact, the United States has long occupied a position upon a hypocritical throne, condemning the actions of others that don’t fall in line with international norms and agreements while seldom being held to other international standards ourselves. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. has been the world’s superpower for decades, and we’ve acted the part.

Just because the United States is the only real superpower doesn’t mean that we got there on our own. We have allies, most of whom belong to NATO and are located in Western Europe. Could we be a superpower without Germany, and the United Kingdom, and France? Probably. Would it be harder? Almost certainly. Here’s an example: yesterday, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus reached out to our allies asking them for help in the fight against ISIS. At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting Mabus stated with regard to our international allies’ cooperation in the ISIS fight, “we can’t do it by ourselves and they have to carry their fair share of the burden.” Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi (who also signed the letter to Iran) said:

We are going to have to insist on more of a contribution from our international partners. We keep the lanes open for them. Our friends in Europe, our NATO friends and our other friends are depending upon what you are talking about. We are going to have to collectively come up with a plan to convince our partners that it is in their interests too to make the financial sacrifice.

We could deal with ISIS without our international partners, most likely. But any politicians who put us in that position would face a lot of backlash for the political and financial ramifications.

What does this have to do with Iran, and the remarkable letter that Senate Republicans sent to Iran’s government? Well, it’s important to remember that this deal, like any aspect of international politics, does not exist in a vacuum. Most importantly, this isn’t just a negotiation between Iran and the U.S., it involves five other countries and will be endorsed by a U.N. Security Council Resolution. We would prefer not to piss off the U.K., Germany, and France for the aforementioned reasons. Although our relationship with China is rocky at best, it’s hands down one of our biggest trading partners. Finally, the hot mess that is Putin’s Russia is at the very least a major player on the world stage, and it would probably be in our best interest to not piss it off either.

So, when Senate Republicans wrote that laughably snappish letter to Iran warning about a future president overturning a deal they don’t like “with the stroke of a pen,” that indicates that said fictional future president wouldn’t just be screwing a deal with Iran–they’d be doing the same thing to the U.K., Germany, France, China, and Russia as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything would come of it–it would probably take a hell of a lot more to lose the loyalty of some of our closest allies–but it’s still not a good move for a new president to make.

That’s sort of the crux of the issue though. Either Senate Republicans don’t give a crap about the delicate balance of global politics, or they are so desperate to stick it to President Obama that they no longer care. Either way, the letter was an extraordinarily dumb move by a remarkably short-sighted group.

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 Hey Senate Republicans: Iran Negotiations Involve Other Countries 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.

The violence in Paris several weeks ago united Europe as little else has in recent years. Plagued by economic decline, some of the more prosperous nations have voiced discontent with the state of the European Union. Partly leading this surge is a wave of far-right political movements. These nationalist movements are gaining traction from Berlin to Paris to London as people tire of stagnant economic growth and demands for bail outs.

Additionally in many of these countries, a dramatic demographic change is occurring in which traditional peoples and cultures are finding themselves increasingly co-habitating with people who have different beliefs and practices. Read on to learn about the political shift and rise of right-wing groups in Europe after years of economic concerns and changing demographics in the region.

History of the European Union

The European Union, unsurprisingly, traces its roots to the aftermath of WWII. With the continent in ruins, several representatives from leading nations attempted to finally find some way to unify the region and put an end to the seemingly endless fighting that had just led to the most destructive war the world has ever known.

The process started with the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, which had six founding members: West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. These six nations agreed to unite their coal and steel production. The foundation was built up further with the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which created the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1967 the European Parliament was created and in 1979 it had its first direct elections.

The European Union itself was codified in 1993 through the Treaty of Maastricht. In 2002, the Euro replaced the currency of 12 of the 15 members of the organization. The Euro reached its highest value against the dollar in 2008; however, like much of the rest of the developed world, the EU was then rocked by the global economic crisis. Since this time, the EU has been attempting to fight off recession and recover, with the only real bright spot being the addition of its twenty-eighth member country Croatia in 2013. The video below gives a succinct explanation of the EU.

Economic Turmoil

In 2008 the global financial crisis hit the European Union and the results have been devastating both economically and with regard to the unity of the region.

The Rich

The economic crisis has hit both rich and poor countries within the Eurozone alike. While many of the rich countries were not in need of bail outs, they still suffered from high debt. First, they had to bail out those troubled fellow EU members that were unable to pay off their high debts after the crisis hit. They also lost markets to sell goods as the cash-strapped nations to the south could not afford to buy as much of their products.

Furthermore, while some indicators of a healthy economy appear to show rich countries in the EU doing well, these can be misleading. In the case of Germany for example, unemployment sits at a very respectable five percent; however, economic growth is virtually flat. In the third quarter of 2014 the economy only grew 0.1 percent, which followed on the heels of a second quarter in which Germany’s economy actually shrunk by 0.1 percent.

Germany is far from the only and certainly not the worst-off wealthy nation in the Eurozone either. France, the second largest economy in the EU, has an unemployment rate of over ten percent and grew only 0.3 percent during the third quarter of 2013. This miniscule growth, similar to that of Germany, also followed a second quarter contraction. Other cases include Spain, the number four economy, and Italy, the number three economy in the Eurozone, with unemployment rates of about 24 percent and 13 percent respectfully.

The Struggling

While the economic crisis certainly hit both wealthy and poor European nations, as is usually the case, the less robust economies ended up worse off. It begins of course with the bail outs. Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Cyprus all had to accept large sums of money from other EU members to avoid default.

Furthermore, as a result of the bail outs, these countries and others struggling with the debt crisis have had to employ austerity measures; however, this strategy limits growth especially because creditors will be hesitant to lend money to struggling economies. This then creates a brutal cycle in which these countries have a difficult time paying off their debts because growth is low and unemployment will remain high. The video below gives a great explanation of the European Union’s economic problems.

Changing Demographics

Coupled with a shaky economic situation are dramatic demographic changes in Europe. This change can be divided into three categories: fertility, age, and ethnicity. First Europe as a whole has a very low fertility rate. Fertility rate is basically the number of children a family can expect to have during its childbearing years. Replacement level, or the level of children being born needed to adequately replace the existing population, is 2.1 children. In 2012 the average fertility rate for countries within the European Union was 1.6 children–well below replacement levels.

Since fewer children are being born, the average populations of these countries are rapidly aging. In Poland for example, the percentage of people above the working age population, 15-64, is expected to increase from 20.9 percent in 2010 to 58 percent in 2050. A large aging population can be a double edged sword, as not only are older people more dependent on public services such as health care and pensions, but they are also less productive in the economy and save less, which affects investing.

Thus a lack of new labor and a society that increasingly needs it has led to mass migration in Europe. This migration can be broken down into two groups. First is the traditional type of immigration, specifically from countries outside the EU to countries inside of it. In 2012, for example, 1.7 million people migrated to the European Union. The other type of migration is within the European Union itself; this figure also was approximately 1.7 million for the year 2012. Both types of migration are headed in one specific direction–west. Western European nations, which not coincidentally have the best economies, are bearing the brunt of the mass movements. The top five destinations in order of descending immigrant arrivals were Germany, the UK, Italy, France, and Spain.

It’s also important to note the origin of the people immigrating. Many are coming from Eastern Europe. A large portion of the incoming people and groups are also Muslim. While it cannot be reiterated enough that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are in every way able adaptable to European life, there is tension in Europe over this influx. Current events, such as the fact that it has been estimated that currently as many as three thousand European-born Muslims have fought on behalf of ISIS or other extremist groups in the Middle East, haven’t helped this tension.

While fear of these fighters returning home has far outstripped any actual problems, the recent shootings in Paris show what can occur when a marginalized group becomes incredibly radicalized. Unfortunately this image of radicalized Muslims plays perfectly into the hands of politicians and right-wing groups that have come to prominence at the expense of immigrant groups.

Europe has a long history of xenophobia. When it deals with mass immigration, the fear has turned into Islamaphobia.  While western Europeans may not be particularly thrilled with eastern European immigrants, Muslims are being singled out in particular because of their different culture and the historical legacy of conflict between Christian and Muslim areas of Europe and the Middle East. This fear and Islamaphobia also extends to first and second generation Muslims as well, particularly in a time of economic uncertainty.

The Reemergence of the Right Wing

All these issues–economic problems, low fertility rates, and mass immigration–have led to a resurgence in the power and appeal of right-wing parties in Europe. More specifically, what has led to this rise is how economic problems are perceived as being compounded by immigration. For example, in the European Union the youth unemployment rate as a whole is 23 percent; in Greece it has been as high as 60 percent.

In a sadly ironic twist the backlash to this has usually been against immigrants who are perceived as stealing the few precious jobs that are available; however, immigration is necessary in the first place because the birth rates are so low. Additionally, immigrant populations have even higher unemployment rates than native youth.

As a result of these concerns, in recent elections several far-right parties including France’s Front National, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Hungary’s Jobbik, and the United Kingdom’s UKIP all won a surprising number of votes. Each of these parties display different combinations of outward anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant sentiments, and racism, or have been associated with such traits in the past. While this by no means represents a majority, it does indicate a disturbing trend for the European Union.

While it seems clear that far-right political movements are on the rise in Europe, the question turns to what exactly these groups want. Just like other political groups, especially across national lines, their interests vary. Overall, the focus seems to be anti-immigration, specifically based on a fear that immigrants will take away badly needed jobs from native residents. At the forefront of this movement is the Front National in France, which won the most seats in the European Parliament of any far right party.

The Front National can be characterized as one of the most moderate of the far-right parties coming to power.  Its primary focus is on nationalism instead of more overtly far-right ideologies espoused by other groups such as Golden Dawn, Jobbik, and the accused neo-Nazi NPD group in Germany; however, Front National has its roots in exactly the same kinds of dogma that these groups maintain, namely anti-Semitism and racism. This is why the far right party in Britain, the UKIP, has refused to join with them. Thus the main connection these groups all seem to have is strong support for anti-immigration measures, which entails moving away from a united Europe and its open migration policies between nations. The video below provides further explanation of the rise of far-right parties and what they believe.

Current State of the Union

Europe appears to be in serious trouble. Its native population is dwindling because of low fertility rates and an aging population. The people migrating in to fill this void, while on the whole younger, also bring different cultures and mindsets. All this has led to a wave of right-wing parties that are in favor of closing borders, ousting immigrants, and breaking away from the ailing European Union.

Europe’s economy, while growing slightly, is still badly damaged and will likely take years just to return to pre-recession levels. Additionally, fertility rates in Europe show no signs of increasing for the most part, at least in native-born citizens. Without more people to assist the aging population, immigration is also likely to continue. This immigration is also likely to continue from Eastern Europe and nations with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, which often include large numbers of Muslims.

In the future, however, it seems possible that significant changes could come to the union. First it is possible that the UK leaves the EU. Prime Minister David Cameron has already been cornered into a vote on whether or not to stay in the union. While a vote certainly doesn’t mean anything for certain, the mere fact that it is being forced upon him does. If the UK does leave it could have additional shockwaves on other nations such as France and Germany and may also lower confidence in the EU’s future.

A lot rides on France and Germany. They both have already invested a lot in the European Union and reaped rewards from it, so it might be a stretch for them to leave; however, calls for potential European bank reforms to mimic what they have done nationally shows not only how they view their own importance in Europe, but also is a test of how the other members view them as well.

Conclusion

Far right parties are becoming increasingly popular and powerful in Europe. This has been the result of a number of factors; notably the Eurozone economic crisis, low fertility rates, an aging population, and a large influx in immigrants. Furthermore, every indication shows that these mechanisms are only likely to keep moving down this path and not reverse course. Therefore, while it is too early to give up on the grand experiment of a United States of Europe, serious reforms are needed if the experiment is to work. Reform is also necessary if European leaders hope to quell the rising influence of far-right parties and their supporters.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: Learning About the Unknown: The Economic Impacts of Aging in Europe and Central Asia

European Commission: 2014 Autumn Economic Forecast; Slow Recovery With Very Low Inflation

European Commission: Eurostat; Migration and Migrant Population Statistics

Additional

NPR: A Brief History of the EU

Forbes: Suddenly the EU’s Break-Up Has Moved From a Long Shot to a Probability

The New York Times: Study on Wealth Fuels Euro Crisis Debate in Germany

Statista: Unemployment Rate in Member States of the European Union

Eurostat: Total Fertility Rates

Vienna Institutefor International Economic Studies: Effects of Euro Crisis on Europe’s Periphery

Telegraph: Muslim Europe; The Demographic Time Bomb Transforming Our Continent

CNN: From Antwerp to Aleppo–and Back; Europe’s Nightmare

Guardian: Eurozone Growth Figures; Germany Narrowly Avoids Triple-Dip Recession

New Geography: Will Europe Hit a Demographic Turning Point?

Huffington Post: Sudden Rise of Far-Right Groups in EU Parliament Rings Alarm Bells Across Europe

USA Today: Immigration Backlah is on the Rise in Europe

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 Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force? appeared first on Law Street.

The people of Scotland voted to maintain their 307-year-old union with the United Kingdom yesterday, as the Scottish independence referendum was defeated by a margin of 55.3 to 45.7 percent. The referendum had numerous implications for both Scotland and the UK, and while Scottish residents decided against independence, a shift in UK politics may now be looming.

The referendum marks one of the most significant events in UK politics, and campaigning went down to the wire as preliminary polls anticipated a narrow result. On September 15, just three days before the vote took place, the three major Parties in parliament vowed to provide more power to the Scottish government. David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband, leaders of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Labour Parties respectively, all came out in support of giving Scotland more control over its budget and public policy if the independence movement were to fail. Such a promise may have influenced the results of the referendum, and may also explain why its defeat was greater than previously expected.

The Future of Devolution

The debate over Scottish autonomy has sparked a lot of discussion of the media is calling “Devo-Max.” This term, also known as Devolution Max or “independence lite,” is the concept of giving Scotland a significant amount of autonomy in taxation, spending, and internal policy matters. At its fullest extent, Devo-Max would give Scotland control over nearly all of its policy with the exception of national matters like defense and foreign policy, which would remain in the hands of the national government.

Fiscal autonomy is one area that specifically appeals to the people of Scotland. A What Scotland Thinks poll found that nearly three quarters of Scottish residents favor giving the Scottish parliament primary authority over taxation and welfare if it did not become independent. Currently, Scotland receives a block grant from parliament each year to fund policy initiatives under its authority. If devolution went as far as fiscal autonomy, nearly all of its revenue would go directly to the Scottish Parliament, rather than to the UK for parliament to allocate.

The West Lovian Question

Conventional wisdom suggests that further devolution may be favorable to both Scotland and the United Kingdom, as Scotland would have more autonomy and the UK would retain the economic benefits of the union. However, such a solution could also exacerbate the current “West Lothian Question,” in parliament. The West Lothian dilemma was created during an earlier period of devolution. This problem got its name after Tam Dalyell, a member of parliament (MP) for the Scottish constituency of West Lothian, who cautioned against further devolution of power.

The UK parliament in Westminster devolved some of its authority to create the Scottish parliament in the late 1990s, and as a result, it no longer deals with every issue related to Scotland. Scotland still has MPs in Westminster to provide Scotland with a say in issues of national importance. As a result, issues that exclusively affect England are still voted on by the national parliament – meaning members from Scotland have a say in issues that exclusively affect England. The practical consequences of this could be a vote outcome that does not reflect the views of MPs representing English districts, even if the bill only affects England. As more and more power is devolved to Scotland and other parts of the UK, this problem will continue to worsen.

Suggested solutions to the West Lovian dilemma include the creation of England’s own local government, or restricting the vote on England-only issues to MPs from English districts. However, many oppose the creation of an additional level of government, and changing who can vote on specific legislation could create two different majorities depending on the issue at hand.

Going forward

Although the extent to which Parliament will devolve power to Scotland remains unknown, it is clear that the recent referendum has shaken up politics in the UK. Momentum from the independence campaign has forced a response from parliament; however, further devolution creates its own problems. Although the 307-year-old union remains, the UK’s national politics are likely going to change.

Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister and strong proponent of independence, announced his resignation after the results of the referendum came out. Although the referendum failed to secure independence for Scotland, it did provoke a significant response from parliament. In his resignation statement, Salmond noted the significance of the movement saying, “We now have the opportunity to hold Westminister’s feet to the fire on the ‘vow’ that they have made to devolve further meaningful power to Scotland. This places Scotland in a very strong position.”

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [stuart anthony via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does Scotland Go From Here? appeared first on Law Street.

This afternoon, publisher Elsevier Science won the R.R. Hawkins Award at the American Association of Publishers’ PROSE Awards, winning the top prize in the professional and scholarly publishing industry. Elsevier was honored for its work publishing the recent book, Alan Turing: His Work and Impact.

Folks, how many of you even know who Alan Turing is? Probably not a lot of you, unless you were serious math and science nerds during college.

So! I’ll catch you up. Born in 1912, Turing grew up in London and was one of those kids who’s just crazy smart. The kind of smart that makes you never want to read again, because OMG you could never measure up. He was such a talented math student that he skipped elementary calculus, and went straight to coming up with Einstein’s same ideas on his own by age 16.

Did you ever see Good Will Hunting? Alan Turing is basically Matt Damon. Yes. That guy.

But, since Turing didn’t endure childhood abuse and neglect like Will Hunting, he didn’t go on to become an under-achiever with anger problems. Instead, he turned out fabulously — he went on to become one of the most important mathematicians in history.

He came up with the idea to feed machines algorithms. He broke the German Enigma codes in World War II. He invented the CAPTCHA test. So, basically — that scene in The Social Network where the Facebook algorithm finds itself on the window of Zuck’s dorm room? That would be thanks to Turing. The Allied Powers defeating Hitler’s Nazi Germany in World War II? You can thank Turing for that, too. The computer you’re reading this post on right now? Also courtesy of Turing.

Considering none of us can remember how to survive without computers and the Internet, Alan Turing pretty much made our whole lives. So, it’s pretty weird that a guy this important isn’t actually way more famous than he is, right?

Right. But he’s not. Because he was gay.

Back when Turing was alive, homosexuality was a criminal offense in England. So, in 1952, when his home was burgled by an acquaintance of his lover, Turing found himself in some deep shit. During the investigation, he admitted to having a romantic and sexual relationship with his lover, and wound up being charged with a crime himself. Crap like this is why queer folks don’t trust the cops, you guys.

Anyway! Turing wound up being convicted of gross indecency, and in lieu of prison time, he was sentenced to chemical castration. For one year, Turing received injections of oestrogen, a synthetic female hormone. As a result, he became impotent and developed gynaecomastia — a fancy doctor word that means he started growing breasts. Not surprisingly, Turing lost his security access and his job.

Also unsurprisingly, Turing was not a happy guy during this whole ordeal. He was so unhappy, in fact, that he committed suicide just two years later. In 1954, Turing was found dead in his apartment, a half-eaten apple lying beside him. It’s suspected that he laced the apple with cyanide in a dark reenactment of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. He was only 41.

Courtesy of Duncan Hill via Flickr.

In the years since his death, Turing’s legacy has been complicated. While his work lives on forever — providing the basis of all modern-day computer science — his name has been shrouded in shame-induced obscurity. His fame was revived in the early 2000s, when England batted around the idea of granting him a posthumous pardon for his “crimes,” something that didn’t officially happen until 2013.

So, when Elsevier published this book, celebrating Turing’s work and solidifying his place in history, it was a pretty big deal. They sent a message to the world that Alan Turing won’t be forgotten, despite his sexuality.

Courtesy of Bernt Rostad via Flickr.

Before now, Turing was something of a tragic figure. He was a ridiculously great thinker, an indispensable historical figure, a scientific visionary with one tragic flaw. He liked other men. And in this heteronormative, patriarchal, Puritanical, fucked up world, that was reason enough to banish him from the history books. To banish him from life, really. His final years on this planet were tortured ones, and his gross mistreatment at the hands of the law ultimately led to his suicide.

Turing wasn’t alone. Countless queers have been persecuted over the course of history, and we continue to face social and legal adversity today. In the United States, homosexuality was a criminal offense until 2003. That’s insane.

So, here’s the bottom line. It’s awesome that Elsevier published this book, and it’s super fabulous that the company was honored for it. You heard it here first.

But Turing’s not the only gay man who suffered at the hands of the law. He’s not the only queer person whose legacy was forced into obscurity. And he’s not the only queer whose life was cut tragically short.

So, let’s remember Alan Turing. But let’s not forget about the rest of our community—especially those of us who aren’t white, male, able-bodied, middle-class, and cisgender. We’re suffering too.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Tim Ellis via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EXCLUSIVE: Alan Turing Honored at the PROSE Awards appeared first on Law Street.