Pi Magazine, Issue 717 - Mayhem

February 2017 ISSUE 717

Fidel Castro: man or monster?

Freedom House Index: How free are we?

Science in the Post-Truth Era #FREETHENIPPLE Enemies of Article 50 Warzone tourism: would you do it?

LETTER FROM THE EDITORS

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the end of the world as we know it.

Mayhem is upon us and there is nothing we can do except take to the streets to make our voices heard. There’s not just another old white guy in the Oval Office, but an especially racist bigoted narcissitic one with a passion for spray tans, hair dye, and women that could easily be his daughters. All around the world, we are seeing the rise of dictatorship and the precarious course of freedom becoming ricketier, compromise by compromise. People are ideologically divided more than at any point in recent times: political polarisation seems to be here to stay. Although people are standing up for what they believe in, marching forwards for what they think is right, buckling down to work to improve things, and pushing on in their fights for all kinds of freedom, those that would see freedom limited to people that are similar to them appear to be winning. Democracy is failing the righteous as slight majorties favour racism, sexism and elitism disguised as national paternalism.

For this issue of Pi we only had to look at the publication date to know what the theme should be. Trump has risen and is already impinging upon basic human rights. Whilst it may be true that he did not win the popular vote, and that it seems the entire world is against him, we must remember he genuinely (despite the insanity of his claims and primises) did win the US electoral college (or so we’re told - yes, we’re looking at you Putin). If your news feeds are filled with Trump-disgust demonstrates that you clearly belong to one side. Of course, we must protest and fight, but why has democracy failed us so? The problem is that the world is seemingly almost perfectly divided, a very near 50/50 split in opinion on Trump and Brexit. What issues and ideas must be addressed to understand this divide and how to move forward in a world where the current world order is threated? Truth, justice, equality and freedom.

Apparently, we’re living in the ‘post-truth’ era, a time where fake news reigns supreme rendering discering fact from fiction an arduous task for the inexpert consumer. Throughout the different sections of Pi our writers, contributors, designers, and editors have investigated, explored, and considered different ideas about our theme - truth, justice, equality, and freedom - asking themselves if we will become more or less free in this new Trumpian, Brexiteering world (if you don’t believe these are real words, just accept them as Pi’s contribution to alternative facts).

2016 was one hell of a ride, but hey, we made it through. Now let’s hope that 2017 doesn’t trump it (no pun intended). As ever, Pi is here to help you procrastinate, so have a read and see what you think of our take on the brave new world we’ve entered…

PS. No dubious truths were used in the making of the magazine. Honest: we fact check.

Beatrix Willimont & Nancy Heath Editors-in-Chief 2016-2017

CONTENTS

Comment

p. 4-5: Pi Debates: Fidel Castro p. 6-7: A Prison Sentence, A Life Sentence

Features

p. 8-9: The Investigatory Powers Act of 2016 p. 10-11: How Free Are We?

Politics

p. 12-13: Enemies of Article 50 p. 14-15: Tunisia after Jasmine

Science & Technology

p. 16-17: Science in the Post-Truth Era p. 18-19: Animal Rights at UCL and Beyond

Sport p. 20-21: Professional Sports: A Game for the Rich? p. 22-23: The Rise of the Keyboard Soldier

Travel

p. 24-25: Warzone Tourism p. 26-27: Study abroad: A Right of a Privilege

Lifestyle

p. 28-29: #FreetheNipple p. 30-31: Make Up: Pressure or Pleasure?

MUSE

p. 36: Where have all the angry young men gone? p. 37: ‘From what a torment did I free thee?’ p. 38-39: Review of Chi-Raq p. 40-41: Banned Books

p. 42-43: TEAM EDITORIAL

Pi Magazine 717 | Comment

Castro was a monster - he should be remembered as one.

John Bilton condemns the idealisation of Castro in the wake of his death

Take the case of Armando Valladares, a poet who supported the revolution but was sentenced to 30 years in jail after refusing to put an “I’m with Fidel” plaque on his desk.

While in prison, he was tortured, made to eat other prisoner’s excrement and kept for long periods in a cell too small to lie down in, without access to a toilet. He was released in 1982 following 22 years in prison, only after a direct appeal by the French President.

Repression is still rife in Cuba: in 2015, Human Rights Watch reported 6,200 cases of arbitrary detention. Detainees, they say, are often beaten and threatened. There is no judicial independence. Cubans who criticise the government still face prosecution without a fair and public trial. Prisons are overcrowded. Within them, prisoners are

Page 4

The majority of Cubans still live in poverty, earning less than $20 a month (though Castro lived on a private island). There is only one workers union, which is run by the state. Things like perfume are considered a luxury reserved for tourists. The only official LGBT movement – which is state-sponsored – does not recognise Pride Week and gays are often harassed. Very few people have access to the internet, with Wi-Fi costing about $2 an hour, and even then it is heavily censored. Most can read, but only have access to tepid state-sponsored literature; people who try to write are censored.

t

cas

Those most targeted are artists, academics and bloggers – people most vocally critical of the government

cause he defied America and outlasted 10 US presidents seem to forget that he did so by not holding elections and refusing Cubans basic human rights. He defeated an American-backed dictatorship, but replaced it with a Russian-backed one.

Most importantly, Castro’s achievements – education and healthcare – could have been just as easily achieved in a free and open society. He was a monster, and that is all he should be remembered as.

: fi del

But we cannot separate Castro’s politics from his legacy. Castro was a dictator.

Those who criticised his regime were labelled ‘counter-revolutionary’, rounded up and, without fair trial, sent to prisons and forced labour camps where they faced torture and other horrific abuses. Castro was famously intolerant of homosexuals, and in the 1960s and ‘70s routinely sent them to labour camps, in which many died. A secret police kept watch. People were scared to speak the leader’s name.

made to work 12-hour shifts, and are beaten when they cannot fulfil quotas. Those most targeted are artists, academics and bloggers – people most vocally critical of the government.

pi d eba tes

C

astro’s reign was contentious. He was a dictator who brutally repressed his people. However, there has always been a small section of society prepared to view him positively. Brushing aside the decades of human rights abuses (grossly exaggerated, they say, by western media and Cubans who fled his regime) they portray a man who liberated his country from a US-backed dictatorship, who outlasted 10 US presidents – and whose legacy is survived by a world-class healthcare system and near-universal literacy levels.

This is Castro’s legacy: repression and poverty. People who venerate him be-

str

o’s l

ega cy

Comment | Pi Magazine 717

How does one justify supporting Fidel Castro?

Adil Sait argues that Castro’s legacy is complex, and should be treated as such

F

idel Castro was an enigmatic and controversial leader, transforming and influencing Cuba and beyond. While human rights violations in Castro’s one party socialist state cannot be condoned, his legacy is more complex than this single dimension. His rise to power during the Cold War, the challenges he encountered, and his political choices cannot possibly fit a simple narrative. While Castro was characterised as an anti-American, pro-Soviet dictator, he also emerged as an icon of counter-imperialist and popular movements, propagating social justice and economic equality. Contrasting perceptions of Castro’s actions were driven by fact and propaganda perpetuating the myth of Castro.

Castro began the late-1940s as a radical political activist and law student at the University of Havana. His political beliefs were shaped by concerns surrounding the corruption, social inequity, and independence of Cuba. Throughout the 1950s Castro was involved in Cuba’s Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movement which lead to the ousting of American-backed dictatorship of General Batista in 1959 and the creation of Communist Cuba. Unsurprisingly, Castro became a major global icon in the era of cold war heroes and villains.

Castro’s revolution, thwarting Kennedy’s failed ‘Bay of Pigs’ invasion in 1961 and the brinkmanship of the Cuban Missile crisis of 1962, came with economic costs. The 1960 trade embargo imposed by Eisenhower on Cuba, which had been heavily dependent on US trade, crippled its domestic economy. In return, Castro centralised planning, nationalised business and turned to Soviet subsidies, which did not alleviate economic problems but pushed Castro towards Soviet policy up to the 1980s. Throughout his life, Castro sought to differentiate Cuba positions from the USSR but prioritised thwarting the American imperialist tendencies.

this post-Soviet period also reinvented Castro as a moderate progressive leader.

The collapse of the USSR in 1989 led to the rise of American international dominance which Cuba continued to resist. The US Congress’ passing of the Helms-Burton Act (1996) decreed that sanctions could be lifted only if the Castro regime was removed.

Along with this, a United Nations resolu-

tion was passed which condemned the violation of human rights, which had come about partly from decades of paranoia regarding security of the revolution. Yet, this post-Soviet period also reinvented Castro as a moderate progressive leader. He instituted democratic reform, encouraged economic liberalisation, expanded healthcare and education, and promoted environmentalism, anti-globalisation and anti-racism. As an elder statesman he wrote in the Cuban Communist mouthpiece ‘Granma’ on diverse issues including nuclear co-operation between America and North Korea, standing with America after 9/11 but also fairly criticising US foreign policies like Guantanamo Bay. As a Communist revolutionary leader, Castro implemented a radically different world-view, challenging assumptions of capitalist democracy which have been viewed by many as flawed, oppressive and ultimately impoverishing. After his death, Cuba passed a law banning the naming of monuments after Castro, as he desired.

Castro was both a man of his times and a man beyond the constraints of history. The bearded cigar chomper Fidel Castro may have died in 2016, but Castroism is not buried yet.

Page 5

pi magazine 717 | comment

D

iscontent with the workings of the probation system has become increasingly widespread, both in the US and Europe. September 9 bore witness to the largest prison strike in US history, where prisoners nationwide coordinated a mass protest and stoppage of work. Since September, new interest has been sparked in discussions involving the failings of such correctional facilities. Both sides seem to have finally reached an agreement regarding the causes of said shortcomings.

MARIA TANASE DISCUSSES THE FAILINGS OF OUR PRISON SYSTEMS

A PRISON SENTENCE, A LIFE SENTENCE page 6

Behind the more publicized incidents of rioting in prisons lies the public’s lack of willingness to admit that a prisoner’s identity extends beyond his or her sentence Existing, insufficient infrastructure has bred a general sentiment of unrest, with increasingly frequent strikes, riots and even escapes that have so far led to violent repressions. Overcrowded cells that both multiply and complicate the needs of inmates are met with severe staffing issues. Staff are poorly prepared to deal with the reality of a new set of demands whose cause and necessity have yet to be established. Issues pertaining to prison staff extend beyond numbers, to how prepared they are to understand and handle complex behavioral situations.

Last month 260 inmates were involved in a riot at HMP Birmingham, a privately run jail in the UK. Considered to be the worst riot for a quarter of a century, inmates took over 4 wings and it lasted for 12 hours before staff could regain control. The riot followed increased tensions over the decline in basic facilities available to inmates, including heating and hot water. Increase in the number of hours spent locked up due to severe staff shortages had naturally fueled aggravation and resentment. This decline in staff has come in spite of the fact that prison numbers have increased by about 40,000 since 1993 to exceed 85,000. In the past 2 months alone, the prison population has increased by more than 1,000. It ought to come as no surprise that the UK is now

comment | pi magazine 717

facing a prison crisis on an unprecedented scale.

Behind the more publicized incidents of rioting in prisons lies the public’s lack of willingness to admit that a prisoner’s identity extends beyond his or her sentence.

If riots have become more recently widespread, they have done so because they are symptomatic of a wider sense of discontent and poor mental health among prisoners.

To the extent that one is willing to admit that the probation services are flawed, one will inevitably pull on a thread that reveals a wider system. A system that not only imprisons individuals because they represent a threat to the society that they are a part of, but one that indiscriminately punishes because it conflates the offence with some inherent trait of the individual condemned.

It is an understanding of both the prisoner and the law that is linear, divisive and feeds on fear to create the impression of an indisputable need for security. A security that doesn’t order, but instead stigmatizes.

As long as we refuse to grant prisoners the space necessary to discuss the complexity of a crime, the issue remains unquantifiable and thus exposed to a dialectic of “us versus them”. We effectively banish prisoners to what is an ambiguously-defined state of citizenship.

Recent years have seen the progress of a private system of incarceration in which the prison is constituted as a corporation The prison population in the UK has doubled in the last 20 years as sentences have lengthened and the types of “anti-social” acts classified as offences increased. An increasing numbers of inmates should signal a less rigid, more flexible justice system.

One would think that the gravity attached to such a conceptualization of crime would make one think twice before giving a verdict. Instead, crime has become more severely punished. It is unclear whether this is due to stricter rule of law defining an ever larger negative space outside of what

is considered permissible, or whether it is instead the sign of a blurring of what constitutes the role of a prison.

Recent years have seen the progress of a private system of incarceration in which the prison is constituted as a corporation.

At the same time, we have witnessed what is both a widening (in the sense of flexibility) and a restriction (as an empty cliché that lends itself to cheap universalization) of the public’s perception of criminality. It cannot be a coincidence that these have both concurrently occurred.

There is definitely a level of dehumanization that occurs both in the stigmatization of prisoners and in the handling of them by private institutions As a private corporation performing what has traditionally been thought of as a state role, the increased monetization that such a change brings in cannot be ignored. If the US is confronted with accusations of an additional requirement of “productivity”, the UK doesn’t fare any better. How can one budget a firm that has no other choice but to accept the increasing demand for its services, even as it proves incapable of carrying it out appropriately and repeatedly requires help from the state?

There is definitely a level of dehumanization that occurs both in the stigmatization of prisoners and in the handling of them by private institutions. Such prisons exploit inmates by making use of their labor or by disposing of such a poor system of organisation that prisoners are dehumanised simply by being “lost” or “misplaced”.

However, renewed discussions prompted by the failings, on different accounts, of prisons, has illuminated these problems.

We are relegating prisoners to a uniformly signifying mode of existence that might as well be silent. This is not only counter-productive for both prisoners and society at large alike, but is also ultimately unsafe and dangerous.

page 7

Pi Magazine 717 | Feature

A game of truth and shadows: The Investigatory Powers Act of 2016

Page 8

Feature | Pi Magazine 717

Liam Fitt explores the implications of the Investigatory Powers Act for Britain in 2017

O

n the 29 th November 2016 the Investigatory Powers Act (2016) became law. It’s a mesh of facts and implications, centred on questions of mass surveillance and personal information collected for and used by intelligence agencies. Its passage into British law profoundly changes the role of surveillance in our lives, with far-reaching consequences for the nature of freedom of information, and personal privacy in the United Kingdom.

Yet, the major question is how, in this postSnowden age, will the Investigatory Powers Act effect our freedoms in 2017?

For some people and organisations, it is a deeply troubling step taken by the government, pushed by Theresa May and her parliamentary backers, without any of the necessary safeguards for individual privacy put in place beforehand. For others, this Act is seen as a piece of legislation weaving together not only a new regulatory body specifically designed to oversee such matters, but also limitations for public ‘snooping’ because of the process of attaining warrants, and thus, an essential to help promote personal privacy. The Act’s requirement of warrants actually makes investigatory actions legal though, except for in ‘exceptional’ circumstances. Supporters of the Act counter that unless literally thousands of warrants were signed-off without due consideration, then the public is, and will remain, safe, for now at least, from legalised state snooping.

The idea of an Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) came about after revelations from Edward Snowden. In June 2013, Snowden, an American National Security Agency (NSA) analyst, stepped forward as a whistle-blower on state investigatory powers and intelligence. Snowden’s information demonstrated the lack of transparent legislation in government approaches towards surveillance. Although his leaks were primarily about the US, because of the intimate relationship between the US and UK intelligence agencies, with the ‘the Five Eyes alliance’, the UK’s intelligence schemes were also brought to public attention.

In the wake of this scandal, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA, 2014) was hurriedly produced and seen through parliament to legalise intelligence gathering practices. Had it not been for Snowden then such legislation may not have been introduced, tarnishing David

Anderson Q.C.’s claims that transparency is at the heart of the legislation. The heart of the legislation was reactionary, not calculated action for the sake of transparency. However, the DRIPA was only ever supposed to be a temporary legislative solution. The 2016 Act goes much further, re-stating and elucidating all powers related to online surveillance, hacking, information and communication interception, and bulk metadata gathering that the Government has already been utilising for the past fifteen years or so without parliamentary consent. It legitimises existing practices, while also making clear when the interception of data and communication is unlawful and illegal.

Another feature of the Act is that it also creates processes through which warrants for use of such investigatory powers can be obtained. This marks a clear departure from the current, relatively hidden practices of the British Intelligence community. Furthermore, it also extends the power of the Government and its agencies: it requires the past twelve months of Internet activity of everyone in the UK to be recorded and stored by Internet service providers.

In effect, this means that should the right warrants be acquired, your entire Internet history (including communications) for the past twelve months and everything that it seems to reflect about you would be open to scrutiny.

This has, understandably, raised many concerns about encroachments upon human rights, in particular ‘the right to privacy’ as stated in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is hard to argue that a right to privacy is maintained in the UK when, should a warrant be acquired, all your messages and internet communications must be surrendered to scrutiny.

Most notably, the European Justice Court has recently ruled that the ‘general and indiscriminate retention’ of communications such as email by the UK government was illegal under the DRIPA and contravened the European Convention on Human Rights.

Thus, the discussion over legality has extended to the Investigatory Powers Act. However, with ‘Brexit’, new opportunities to enshrine these practices are clearer.

The issue of transparency raises one of the biggest questions of who would, and could, be targeted by this legislation. Underlying assumptions by those in favour is that it

is primarily about combatting terrorism, alongside serious crimes and thus your average UCL student is highly unlikely to be targeted. Human trafficking, paedophilia, drug trafficking, and the radicalisation of vulnerable individuals are all potential warrants for the legislation’s use. However, without the proper safeguards in place, the greatest fear is that one’s freedom, not only privacy, but also one’s freedom of speech, is at risk. Anything said or done online could be retained and used against you.

Potentially, even the act of having such infrastructure in place, with the capability to execute such power of persecution, is alarming and highly problematic. The potential to violate privacy of the individual is one of the key aspects of the debate that Snowden was keen to emphasise. It would only take a few politicians and some slight policy changes for a more aggressive stance to be taken on cyber-warfare, and, as part of this, the encroachment of online investigatory powers into the lives of the public.

Alongside this there is a direct psychological impact which such legislation and the shadow of surveillance casts over the general public: the fear of an omnipresent 1984 style surveillance state. Even if one argues that it does not directly impact upon anyone’s freedom of speech, there could, and likely will, still be an inevitable behavioural alteration in the public’s use of the internet and what they may say and how they may say it, both online and off.

In conclusion, regardless of whether the government has intended it or not, the Investigatory Powers Act (2016) has profound implications for the United Kingdom in 2017. While the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA, 2014) was meant to solve the questions of legality, the European Court of Justice’s ruling has raised the potential human rights implications of the new 2016 IPA. The fear remains that these powers could be misused.

Regardless of whether threats are real, the perceived threat is that data, what we think, do, search for online, and communicate with one another, is constantly under the government’s watch, and with that comes an erosion of free speech and a reduction in the sense of privacy of the individual in the modern world. It feels like the government is watching now: and one day you might think twice about what you wish you said.

Page 9

pi magazine 717 | features

F

reedom is an abstract concept. It encompasses democratic ideals, public expression and human rights. Think tanks and research groups including Freedom House and Polity IV have long sought to deploy comparative quantitative analysis to find a way to evaluate and rank countries by the extent of their freedoms. However, freedom is complicated to define, and it is often contested whether someone, or somewhere has freedom, and therefore the methodologies for monitoring these freedoms can be problematic. In 2017, the political changes in Western politics will add further challenges to the idea of measuring freedoms. As we enter 2017 it seems that progressive politics have been outplayed by nationalist sentiments, and autocracies too seem to be falling apart. So how can we measure freedom, and what does this tell us about the state of the world in 2017?

The debate surrounding world freedoms can be traced back to the end of the Second World War. Economic, social, and political upheavals in Europe and Asia in early twentieth century produced the rise of nationalist movements which undermined democratic and liberal values. The fight against Nazism and Fascism, and then Communism after the end of World War II, led to questions of how to measure abstract notions of democracy. Freedom House, set up in 1941 to promote global freedoms, started in 1972 to instead track this shift from authoritarianism to democracy. The ideological conflict intensified, eventually resulting in the collapse of the USSR in 1989, and the seeming triumph of liberal democracy.

Despite this triumph, Francis Fukuyama’s famous ‘End of History’, written after the fall of the Berlin Wall, does not appear to have been as conclusive an end as it promised. Rather, fundamental assumptions that democracy and liberalism are synonymous broke down. In 1997, Fareed Zakaria coined the term ‘illiberal democracies’ describing the conundrum in countries in which democracy exists, but fundamental freedoms are limited. Writing in December 2016, Zakaria worries that even American democracy is under threat “without any real buffers in the way of sheer populism and demagoguery”.

He supports the notion that democracy is not merely public participation, but also a respect for constitutional safeguards that is needed.

Now, the growth of crony capitalism and electoral despotism have complicated the questions surrounding freedom even in democracy. For example, the fall of the Soviet Union led to disparities between post-Soviet countries, some of which had successfully accepted liberal democracy, whilst others developed more flawed democracies. The aftermath of the break-up of Yugoslavia fuelled the debate over humanitarian intervention in the 1990s, feeding the idea that Western governments could help build a better world by removing autocratic regimes and replacing them with democracies in the image of their own.

The rise of Polity IV – an improved measurement of freedom – has challenged the idea that liberal democracy and illiberal autocracy are mutually

Page 10

ADIL SAIT contemplates whether we can really measure freedom

Ad to in

features | pi magazine 717

the freedom house index: how free are we?

Adil Sait considers what to expect from freedom in 2017

exclusive. Since Ted Robert Gurr created this Polity study in the 1960s, this approach towards assessing global freedom has been institutionalised and developed and now exists in a fourth version. This system creates a “Polity Score” for each country, for each year, within the range of -10 to 10, by considering the state’s elections’ equality, the political participation allowed and enacted in the country, and the checks and balances in place.

A score from -10 to -6 ranks you as an autocracy, -5 to 5 is the middle ground of anocracies, and a score from 6-10 classifies the state as a democracy.

Countries like India, Pakistan, and Kenya are classed as democracies, while Malaysia, Turkey and Russia are considered ‘Open and Closed Anocracies’. China, Cuba, Iran and Vietnam are considered ‘Autocracies’. However, there are many issues this does not deal with: the nuances of legitimacy of Iranian elections, Vietnam and China’s liberalisation although Communist, the problems of corrupt capitalism, or the failures of institutions to check democratic processes in countries like Kenya, Malaysia, Russia, Turkey or Pakistan.

The pressure on global freedom has been more dramatic over the past decades. The rise of terrorism since 9/11 has heightened considerations of freedom, and the crisis in the Middle East post-Arab spring has diminished freedoms across the region from Egypt to Turkey. The rise of the conflict in Syria has exposed the limitations of Europe in accommodating refugees and the fragility of political institutions like the European Union. Systems like the EU, forged in the fires of the Cold War, now reveal fault-lines of freedom in 2017: the centre ground has shifted and democracy has moved and changed with it.

Shifts in notions of freedom and a rejection of liberalism can be seen in both the examples of the United Kingdom and the United States in 2016.

The vote for ‘Brexit’ in Britain, while supposedly showing the UK’s ‘freedom’ to choose between leaving and remaining in the EU, reveals the polarisation and disenfranchisement of significant proportions of the British electorate. Similarly, though Hilary Clinton won the popular vote Trump’s election and subsequent appointment as the 45th President of the United States marks a possible compromise of the ideals of democracy and liberalism which define the USA. For example, Jeff Sessions, whose appointment as a judge was once rejected due to his racial views, becoming the new Attorney General marks a shift, highlighting that American may no longer be hold the highest standard of Freedom it once did.

Quantifying freedom is significant, but freedom is complex and its measurement therefore problematic. Both Freedom House and Polity IV emphasise some aspects of freedom, but often privilege Western models of liberal democracy and ignore finegrain distinctions and alternative political philosophies. In 2017 though, more than ever, revisiting what it means to be free and how we can agree on this is clearly more significant than ever before.

Page 11

Pi Magazine 717| Politics

ENEMIES OF O

n 3rd November, the UK’s High Court ruled that, in order to trigger Article 50, the government requires an Act of Parliament - meaning Theresa May, the Prime Minister, cannot unilaterally with-

draw the UK from the EU without Parliament’s say-so. A furor followed: right-leaning newspapers branded the judges ‘enemies of the people’, and Nigel Farage threatened to march on the Supreme Court (he didn’t, in the end). The decision was appealed and heard in the Supreme Court, the UK’s highest court, in December. On 24th January, the Supreme Court announced its ruling: eight out of the eleven judged agreed that in order to trigger Article 50, the government does indeed require an Act of Parliament.

Under

Article 50, if the UK decides to withdraw from the EU it must notify the European Council of its intentions. This is referred to as triggering Article 50: before the 23rd June 2016, David Cameron implied that he would do so straight after the UK made its decision – he resigned instead.

Months later, the European Council, currently made up of Donald Tusk, JeanClaude Juncker, and the leaders of the 28 member states of the EU, is still waiting.

This is not surprising. Whitehall made no preparations for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and is unlikely to be ready even at the end of March 2017, Theresa May’s self-imposed deadline for triggering Article 50.

Triggering Article 50 will initiate the process by which, after a maximum of two years, the UK will no longer be a member of the EU (unless the remaining 27 member states of the EU unani-

Philip Tait weighs up the case between Parliament and the High Court surrounding the triggering of Article 50

Page 12

Politics | Pi Magazine 717

ARTICLE 50 mously agree to extend the timeline). During this period the UK and the European Council will negotiate on the arrangements for the UK’s withdrawal. If no agreement is reached, the UK will crash out of the EU, with all the damage that entails. Given this, it would have been disastrous to trigger Article 50 immediately.

Theresa May believed that her government could trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament, by means of the royal prerogative - essentially the last vestiges of executive power held by the Crown, which the Prime Minister can exercise. Exactly what this entails is unclear: the government (through the royal prerogative) can perform some of the same actions as executives in other countries, such as issuing pardons and passports, but beyond this the law is murky, a consequence of Britain’s uncodified constitution. Article 50 provides that the UK must notify the European Council of its decision to withdraw from the EU “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”. It is up to the courts to decide what those constitutional requirements actually are.

Importantly, requiring Parliament’s permission means that May must now present Parliament with a plan for how Britain will exit the EU, which many suspect she still doesn’t have.

This may be either a ‘hard Brexit’, whereby the UK re-

moves itself from the single market, in return for complete control over immigration, or a ‘soft Brexit’, whereby Britain stays in the single market and allows the free movement of people within its borders.

May seems to favour the former; Parliament, full of Remainers, favours the latter.

So, requiring an Act of Parliament to trigger Article 50 arguably diminishes the government’s bargaining power with the EU. The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on three essential points: Firstly, in its view, legal rights provided by EU law are equivalent to domestic rights provided by Acts of Parliament.

Secondly, legal rights provided by Acts of Parliament cannot be removed by the royal prerogative because, as Sir Edward Coke said, “the King by his proclamation … cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm”, as the UK is a parliamentary democracy in which Parliament is sovereign.

Thirdly, the court’s decision assumes that the act of triggering Article 50 is irreversible. In this light, the government’s desire to withdraw the UK from the EU without the cover of an Act of Parliament was problematic at best.

What does this say about where power lies in the British political system? For one thing, it shows how murky the system can be: it took valuable months for it to become clear that Parliament should indeed have the ultimate say in triggering Article 50.

The case was not as clear-cut as many on both sides argued – three out of the eleven judges disagreed with the ruling, after all. Whether this is a

strength or a failing of the British political system depends on your view of how power should operate.

It goes without saying that the British Prime Minister is a hugely powerful political figure. The office combines the executive power of the Crown with the legislative power of holding a majority of seats in Parliament. Even when it is competently led, the Opposition can only check the government so much – if the PM can wrangle enough of her Party’s MPs, she can pass most legislation.

Public opinion – given power through elections – is the main check against the PM’s power. However, as Brexit has made clear, our existing system of laws is a strong check too.

When push comes to shove, the Supreme Court can make sure the Prime Minister does not overstep her boundaries – Parliament is sovereign, not the Prime Minister.

Given that the PM controls a majority of seats, this should still give her plenty of control. But with an issue as divisive as Brexit, Theresa May cannot count on the unwavering loyalty of her Party – there are plenty of liberal, pro-business Tories who favour a soft Brexit.

Yet one thing is certain – something someone sadly overlooked when the High Court published its decision on the 3rd of November – nothing the Justices of the Supreme Court say is a comment on the merits or demerits of the UK withdrawing from the EU. The Supreme Court’s duty is only, as Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, put it, to consider the legal issues put before them impartially and to decide the case according to the law. Let’s not forget that. Indeed, as Liz Truss didn’t say: rather than being the enemies of the people, the impartiality and independence of the UK’s courts are a precondition of its democracy. Those who recognise that should be prepared to speak up on the side of our country’s laws when the next headline screams against them.

Page 13

Pi Magazine 717| Politics

Tunisia after Jasmine S

ix years after street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire, an event that helped start the Tunisian Revolution, and the subsequent Arab Spring, Tunisia is the only democratic state to emerge from the uprising that took place across North Africa and the Middle East. Countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Egypt, who all saw major civil uprisings, have either remained under authoritarian rule or reverted to war and political chaos. Thus, Tunisia has been held up as the lone beacon of hope of a potentially successful transition to freedom and democracy.

Ash-sha`b yurid isqat an-nizam, “the people want to bring down the regime”, the major slogan used during the revolution in 2011, certainly met its aim when then-dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia and heralded the start of democracy in the North African coastal state. But the road to democracy over the past six years has not been smooth.

The initial strides made in democracy and freedom in Tunisia should be celebrated There have been notable strides towards greater freedom of expression and civil liberties and the elections held since the disposing of Ben Ali have been free and fair.

However, with few precious natural resources, and a stagnating tourism industry, the economy along with job prospects have declined. As a consequence, a marked increase in terrorist activity and surveillance monitoring have undercut progress.

Tunisia’s Arab Spring counterparts have met fates far worse. Libya and Egypt, two countries once ruled by long-standing dic-

Page 14

tators, have plunged into fractional infighting while Iraq, Yemen, and Syria have instead seen outright war since 2011, which has been made more volatile by the rise of IS (or ISIS).

The initial strides made in democracy and freedom in Tunisia should therefore be celebrated. Elections for the new constituent assembly in October 2011 saw the moderate Islamic party, Ennahda, win enough seats to become the largest party and form the first post-Ben Ali government. Three years later, a modern and progressive constitution was formed and in the same year the secular Nidaa Tounes party won the majority of seats in the assembly, while it’s candidate, Beji Caid Essebsi, became the first President of democratic Tunisia.

The Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, a group made up of trade unionists and lawyers to ensure a smooth transition to democracy, won the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize for its cooperative efforts to bring about change in Tunisia. It is one of only seven African nations to be listed as ‘Free’ by the NGO Freedom House and the only Arabic country to be granted this status.

The Tunisian 2014 constitution guarantees the freedoms of opinion, thought, expression, and publication while freedom of religion has been introduced to an extent largely unprecedented in the Arab world.

While the constitution explains that the religion of the state is Islam, and the President must be a Muslim, Sharia law is not a source of legislation.

Women’s rights have also progressed under consecutive Ennahda and Nidaa Tounes governments. The 1956 Equality Law,

giving women equality with men, has remained in force, and women form 31 percent of the Constituent Assembly of Tunisia (compared to 29 percent in the UK Parliament).

However, amidst the progress made in

Politics | Pi Magazine 717

Alexi Demetriadi considers the effects of the Arab Spring, six years on

mediate aftermath of his exit, censorship was lifted and the new governing body encouraged freedom of the media. However, censorship, once prominent in Tunisian society, is creeping back in. Recent Facebook posts critical about the role of the Tunisian military have been taken down while pornographic websites have been blocked enmasse. Observers claim that censorship has morphed form. Rather than impose blanket bans on certain websites, instead individuals critical of the democratic government are targeted.

Attempts to create a culture of diversity have failed to improve LGBT rights in Tunisia, where homosexual sex is punishable by three years’ imprisonment.

The rights of refugees are also met with little sympathy from Tunisian law. No asylum law means that refugees fleeing war torn neighbour Libya are often housed in informal detention centres, making it impossible to find a source of income.

modern day Tunisia, there is still much work to be done.

Reporters Without Borders once referred to former President Ben Ali as a “predator of press freedom” as he ruled over a highly censored Tunisia. In the im-

the most damning crisis developing in post-revolution Tunisia is not the shortcomings with the introduced freedoms, but the alarming jihadi culture allowed to develop in the vacuum left by the uprising

Arguably, the most damning crisis developing in post-revolution Tunisia is not the shortcomings with the introduced freedoms, but the alarming jihadi culture allowed to develop in the vacuum left by the uprising. Deadly terrorist attacks at the Bardo Museum in Tunis and at a beach resort in the town of Sousse, killing close to 50 Europeans, severely damaged the vital tourism industry of Tunisia, damaging the economy and job opportunities as a result.

Aligned with this, an explosion of Islam after the end of the secular Ben Ali regime meant that IS and Al Qaeda proved enticing avenues to Islam for a post-revolution youth generation. Anis Amri, the Berlin Christmas Market terrorist, was a Tunisian and around 5,000 Tunisians have reportedly joined IS’s ranks in Iraq and Syria, more than from any other country. Half of the jihadists in Libya are thought to be Tunisian. This culture developing within Tunisia may be the single greatest danger to the country’s new found freedom and democracy.

In a recent interview, former Tunisian government minister Tawfiq Jelassi set out his thoughts on the consequences of the revolution and what the future holds for the state. He admits the repercussions of a crippling economy are an obstacle facing Tunisian progress and stresses the importance of understanding that the country is in the midst of massive, but vital, upheaval. He is worried for the short-term future of Tunisia but is cautiously optimistic for the nation’s long-term prospects. Jelassi explains that “Tunisians have won freedom”, and even though there have been both advances and failings in the post-Ben Ali state, he has hope for Tunisia. Even within the current context of a stagnating economy and a developing jihadist culture, “the freedom Tunisia gained, I think, is worth it.”

Page 15

Pi Magazine 717 | SCIENCE & TECH

Science in the Post-Truth Era I

n one of Francisco Goya’s most famous creations, a man has fallen asleep sitting at his desk while behind him grotesque beasts envelope him from the darkness.

The sleep of reason produces monsters, the painter warns in his engraving. In a modern rendition we may imagine the beasts taking on a more human form and coming to resemble the President-elect of the United States, some of the leaders of the nationalist wave sweeping across Europe, or even prominent Brexit campaigners. 2016 was not only the year that saw the prospect of peace and democracy recede in many parts of the world, but also the year when some of the most worrying political developments were democratic choices. Reflecting a common theme in recent political commentary, Oxford Dictionaries selected ‘post-truth’, describing ‘circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’, as the Word of the Year 2016.

So, was the former Justice Secretary and (interestingly) former Education Secretary Michael Gove right when he declared that the public has ‘had enough of experts’ during the Brexit campaign? Have the people shaken off the yoke of reason? Are we to expect politicians such as Donald Trump, winner of fact-checking organisation PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year award, to be the future leaders of the democratic world? Such questions might make you think that we are being faced with some unprecedented social phenomena. Yet instances of public opinion being adamantly resistant to change despite exposure to evidence are

not hard to come by. What these cases seem to suggest is that explanations for such responses are rather more complex than would appear at first.

The European public’s opposition to genetically modified crops is a common example of public misunderstanding of science, one that you are likely to hear about whenever the topic comes up. GM crops have been suggested as a potential solution to a number of agricultural and societal issues. For example, crops such as Bt maize, which are pest-resistant, have led to improved yield and reduction in pesticide use. Experts from fields such as agriculture, economics and food security have welcomed the advent of GM crops on the market as a solution to the problem of feeding a growing global population. The potential safety risks of GM crops have been extensively studied, turning up little cause for concern.

A 2015 review of 698 publications on GM crops safety concluded that they carry similar levels of risk to conventionally bred varieties. Public opposition has been put down to the public’s lack of understanding of the topic and the influence of sensationalist media depiction of GM crops.

Much effort has been put into science communication debunking claims about the dangers of GM crops. The results, however, are not even masochistically satisfactory. In 2005, 59% of respondents to a Eurobarometer survey opposed GM foods, while 63% did so in 2010. Common misconceptions were addressed over a two-page spread of my own A-level biology textbook. The feeling you have when reading about the

Page 16

inadequacy of ‘dangerous foreign DNA’ theories just after completing a whole module on genetics is difficult to adequately put into words. Were A-level biology students truly in need of such outreach?

Well, as it turns out, educational attainment has no significant impact on the likelihood of supporting GM crops. Surveys carried out in Europe have failed to show any significant differences in opinion on GM crops between those with science degrees and those without. This is not what you would expect if the problem lay in the public’s lack of appreciation for scientific evidence. In fact, research by psychologist George Gaskell and colleagues has thrown light on how people actually approach the question of GM foods. For most, their rejection stemmed not from irrational fears, but from a lack of awareness of the benefits of GM crops, which meant that their adoption did not seem worthwhile: explaining why communication strategies, which focused on public risk aversion, weren’t all that effective.

A 1998 UK study posited a causal link between the MMR vaccine and the development of autism in children, causing a media firestorm and a drop in the rate of MMR vaccination. Since then, both the study’s methods and its authors have been discredited, studies have been published and publicised showing no link between the vaccine and autism, and there has been a concerted effort by government and health communicators to renew parents’ trust in the vaccine’s safety. It has been common to frame the message in terms of a risk-benefit analysis: while the MMR vac-

SCIENCE & TECH | Pi Magazine 717

Catrinel Catana considers the influence of current political trends on the public perception of science

cine may carry risks of serious side effects, at the population-level this is an extremely rare occurrence. The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.

A common theme uncovered by studies on public anxiety about vaccination around the world is a distrust of governments and worries about the influence of pharmaceutical companies Continued public anxiety may again seem likely to rest on a lack of regard for scientific evidence. Yet, once more educational background is found to have little to no impact. Some social researchers have chosen to look more closely at parents’ decision-making processes: Jackie Cassell and colleagues found that parents tend to adopt an individual perspective when deciding whether or not to vaccinate their child, looking at the child’s personal and family health history when assessing risks.

For example, a parent might decide against vaccination because of a family history of autism or the child’s tendency of easily catching colds. The latter could be taken as evidence of a weak immune system

that would be ‘overwhelmed’ by the MMR vaccine. Such personalised assessments of risk help explain why the public found reassurances based on population-level analyses unpersuasive. While parents did not necessarily disagree with them, they were not framed in terms of their experiences and did not address their concerns. The lay understandings of immunity and risk uncovered by the study are not scientifically accurate, but they could be invaluable in designing an effective communication strategy.

A common theme uncovered by studies on public anxiety about vaccination around the world is a distrust of governments and worries about the influence of pharmaceutical companies. Cassell’s study found that a majority of both those who had chosen to vaccinate their children and those who had chosen not to strongly agreed that ‘you just can’t trust the government on science’. 52% of those who had chosen to vaccinate and 82% of those who had chosen not to were suspicious of the influence of pharmaceutical companies. In a comprehensive review of the literature on the topic from around the world, Ohid Yaqub and colleagues found that ‘distrust of government sources’ was a stronger determinant than lack of knowledge. It’s not just about disbelieving the evidence: anxiety can clearly also be partly attributed to widespread public suspicion of the government on healthcare issues (and perhaps on other things too).

Research on the political upsets of 2016 is only just beginning. However, initial analysis appears to point away from public

irrationality and disregard for evidence as explanations for last years’ polarising votes. A growing consensus is that global class inequality is playing an increasingly important role in people’s lives and their political choices. Political scientist Vassilis Fouskas has pointed out that, contrary to what you might expect (given his penchant for unwholesome comments about ethnic minorities and women), Trump enjoyed broad support across the population as a Republican candidate. His most reliable base of support, however, was from de-industrialised, economically stagnant areas of the country. Fouskas argues that Trump’s appeal lay in his protectionist economic outlook, which – for many Americans – trumped concerns about wider social issues on which he needed not be as persuasive.

The tragic narrative of a world being engulfed by the plague of ignorance and irrationality as academics and other reasonable folk look on in despair may be cathartically attractive after the developments of 2016.

Yet it’s too simplistic to capture the complexity of the phenomena we are witnessing. And perhaps worst of all, it is disempowering. By giving us a sweeping and complacent explanation for the supposed regress of public consciousness, it prevents us from truly understanding the experiences of the people whom we are trying to influence and from developing more effective communication strategies. And above all, it stops us from asking more nuanced, probably more difficult questions about our global society and its global ills.

Page 17

Pi Magazine 717 | science & tech

ANIMAL TESTING: IS IT WORTH IT?

A

nimal testing for medical research is nothing new: on the contrary, its practice throughout history has helped to develop the understanding of anatomy, physiology and pathology that we enjoy today. Aristotle (384-322 BC) was one of the first to perform experiments on animals in the hope of advancing medicine.

Following in his footsteps in the 12th century, Ibn Zuhr (traditionally known by his Latinized name, Avenzoar), a well-known Arab physician experimented on animals to test surgical procedures before applying them to humans.

Today, the use of animals for experimental work has become a controversial topic, the scientific community put under pressure from several animal rights and protection groups. Many people believe that testing on animals is inhumane. We, as humans, have rights in part because we are able to think and to feel pain. Yet many animals are also able to ‘think’, and definitely feel pain. Therefore, how ethical is it to carry out experiments on these animals? Millions of animals, such as dogs and cats, have a special place in society as beloved pets, yet many less fortunate ones end up locked in cages in laboratories across the country, in the name of science. Even if in the name of science, for most people, it is very hard to imagine a cat or a dog living in pain and distress, subjected to agonising testing which could lead to death.

Fatumina said abukar examines the pros and cons of animal testing - is an end in sight?

Page 18

Tests can involve injecting mice and rats with toxic substances, force-feeding dogs pesticides, and dripping corrosive chemicals into rabbits’ eyes Cruelty Free International, a group that campaigns for the abolition of all animal testing, estimates that the top ten countries in the world to carry out animal experimentation are the USA, Japan, China, Australia, France, Canada, the UK, Germany, Taiwan and Brazil. Recent government figures for 2015 alone reported that a total of 4.14 mil-

science & tech | Pi Magazine 717

lion animal experiments were carried out in Great Britain, with the top ten universities in the UK accounting for more than two thirds of all animal research between them.

In 2014, UCL was highly criticised by animal rights activists for being one of the top three universities to conduct the most research relying on animal testing. A shocking total of 176,901 animals were tested on, including fish, sheep and monkeys.

In defence of the publication of this data, UCL responded with the statement: “Animal research has been at the heart of medical progress throughout history, and much of the medicine we take for granted has roots in animal studies. From penicillin and painkillers to cutting-edge cancer drugs, animal research has played a crucial part in the development of almost every medical treatment used today.” A UCL professor of neurophysiology, Roger Lemon, defended the need for animal testing as a requirement to meet safety regulatory criteria: “The great majority of these tests are regulatory tests. These are tests that need to be carried out on new drugs, new procedures, before they can be used in human patients”.

Recently, UCL carried out research on a rare and debilitating form of childhood Parkinsonism that impairs speech and movement.

The research involved studying and testing different treatments on fish. The results from this study were ground-breaking: researchers were able to develop a drug that corrected the defect in fish. When the drug was used in children affected by this condition, they were able to walk again.

The fact of the matter is, animals are good candidates for research. They share many illnesses with humans – dogs also suffer from cancer, diabetes and ulcers – whilst having a much shorter life expectancy than we do. Most rodents live for up to three years, which allows scientists to test the effects of different treatments over an entire lifespan. In contrast, the average human lifespan is seventy one years, making it virtually impossible for researchers to obtain conclusive lifetime data for humans by experimenting on humans in manageable amounts of time.

But are these reasons enough to warrant animal testing? Many, including several animal rights groups such as Cruelty Free International, make the point that despite

their similarities, animals are not completely representative of the human organism.

This means that research done on animals then applied to humans may not be entirely safe. In 2004, Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was withdrawn from the market after having caused an estimated 320,000 heart attacks and strokes and 140,000 deaths worldwide – despite having been declared safe following trials on monkeys. Professor Thomas Hartuning of Johns Hopkins University stated that using rats for toxicity studies is not representative of the toxicity effect on humans. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also questioned the reliability of the use of animal models for research: “Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies.” Research published in the journal ‘Annals of Internal Medicine’ showed that universities tend to exaggerate the findings from animal experiments, and that scientists rarely publish failed animal experiments, therefore misleading the public about the validity of the data presented. In fact, the public usually doesn’t have access to research results which have not been included in the published data, and which may support the ineffectiveness of the animal studies.

The UK was the first country in the world to implement animal protection rights in 1822 When penicillin, an antibiotic shown to be effective in fighting bacterial infection, was discovered in 1928 by Scottish scientist Alexander Fleming, his early research showed encouraging results on mice which then led to the use of penicillin in humans.

However, it was later discovered that the drug is lethal for hamsters and guinea pigs; if it had first been used on either of these two animals, it would have been discarded.

Penicillin was later shown to work in most animals, including humans, hence also shedding light on similarities between specific species. As part of standard practice, drugs are now tested on multiple species to

decide if a particular drug is safe enough to be tested on people, or if it is too ineffective to warrant human trials. However, many of these experiments cause severe reactions in the animals involved. Tests can involve injecting mice and rats with toxic substances, force-feeding dogs pesticides, and dripping corrosive chemicals into rabbits’ eyes.

The UK was the first country in the world to implement animal protection rights in 1822. It is no surprise, then, that UK research organisations, including UCL, use animal testing only when there is no other option available, and abide by strict ethical guidelines and regulations. UCL have stated that, in some cases, animal testing is inevitable for human safety: “Despite advances in non-animal methods, it is still essential to use animals where no viable alternatives exist”.

For several years now, scientists have been trying to move away from animal experimentation by looking into the use of non-animal methods to study disease, such as using human cells and tissues (known as in vitro methods) or computer modelling. Dr Selina Wray at UCL, together with a team of researchers from organisations such as R Biomedical, was recently awarded a £1 million grant after developing a non-animal screening model involving the use of stem cells to study ‘tau’ proteins – molecules in the brain that are linked to dementia. These in vitro methods are increasingly used as surrogate tests to ‘screen’ cells, reducing the number of tests performed on animals, but there is a long way to go before they can replace animal testing altogether. As Dr Stephens, from Cardiff University, explains, “The in vitro system is not going to replace the animal models, but it will enable a vast number of pre-screens to be undertaken”. Hopefully, this will mean that fewer and fewer animal experiments will be necessary in the future – good news for cats, dogs, rats, and animal rights activists everywhere.

Page 19

Pi Magazine 717| Sport

Professional Sports: a game for the rich?

Page 20

Sport | Pi Magazine 717

Casper Pages explains why money is a springboard for many pro athletes’ careers

T

he ten thousand hour rule, popularised by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers, is a commonly accepted pop-science benchmark to reach expert level in any given specialist activity.

To many, this is what makes the world of sports a very accessible domain – anyone can join: they only need to possess the desire and commitment; anyone can become good: they only need to repetitively practice and hone their skills; anyone can become a professional: they only need to dedicate their lives to their craft, and eventually, the ultimate reward will be theirs.

No matter who you are or where you are from, you have a chance to become the best.

Brooklyn to become a boxing legend.

This shows that even the most unfortunate and impoverished can still achieve sporting greatness, seemingly corroborating the notion that the world of sport is a meritocratic one: it is just you, your talents, ambition and work ethic. If these athletes all made it from the brink of poverty to stardom, then why can’t everyone else do the same?

Unfortunately, the truth isn’t as clear-cut. While athletes’ actions do impact their success in the playing field, their backgrounds are equally important as their efforts. Amateurs need exposure if they want to come close to competing on a professional level, and most of the time, it is money that opens these doors. A study from International Review for the Sociology of Sport analysed NBA players from 1994 to 2004, and found that the odds of making it into the NBA are over a third lower for African-American children from low-income families than from their middle and upper-income counterparts; similarly, the odds drop by over 75 percent for Caucasian kids in the same scenario. The story of LeBron James thus seems to be the exception and not the rule.

The image of sporting success as a level playing field, no pun intended, exists only in our minds, not reality

Looking at the lives of a couple famous athletes, this idea seems to have credence: Cristiano Ronaldo did not let his limited means on the Atlantic island of Madeira stop him from becoming the world’s highest paid footballer and multiple Golden Ball winner. Neither did it stop basketball great LeBron James, who lived in a family that was on the brink of poverty and could not find steady employment. In fact, he even left his mother at nine years of age and moved in with his American football coach for some semblance of stability. Mike Tyson also overcame incredibly challenging circumstances growing up in the rougher ends of

money gives young athletes access to additional development and growth opportunities in the form of personal skills training and elite off-season camps. One ESPN article estimated the yearly expenses on a youth hockey player’s development clinics at over $10,000, hardly an amount that the average family can afford to shell out.

For a lot of sports, deep pockets are a basic requirement. Skiers and surfers incur large travel expenses just to reach their practice grounds. Golfers and ice hockey players have to fork out the money to pay for equipment before they can even begin to learn playing. These hefty fees turn off many potential athletes from poorer backgrounds before they even have a chance to try them. The cards are definitely stacked against the less fortunate.

The image of sporting success as a level-playing field, no pun intended, exists only in our minds, not reality. Money drives sports more than we like to admit – and it certainly has a direct impact on young athletes’ chances of making it all the way to the top. As extracurricular development, funded by parents or elusive sponsors, increasingly becomes the norm for all aspiring sportsmen and sportswomen, money and means carry as much weight as raw talent and undeveloped potential. The fact is, we live in a world where those who become professional athletes are more likely to be those who can afford it - ten thousand hours of trying to play tennis without a racket never got anyone anywhere.

money and means carry as much weight as raw talent and undeveloped potential

In most cases, money is the essential to unlocking access to required sporting resources. In American basketball, the most promising young players all supplement their regular high school play by joining elite teams that go around the country competing with other all-star squads. The associated travel, equipment, and other expenses are significant burdens on parents’ pockets – so the more affluent are more likely to be able to foot the bill for their kids’ development. More generally,

Page 21

Pi Magazine 717 |sport

The Rise of the Keyboard Soldier Page 22

LIFESTLYE | Pi Magazine 717

henry hill explores the how hooliganism has shifted to the virtual world It was 19th May 1985 when British football experienced one of its worst days in history without a ball even being kicked. During the European Cup Final in Brussels, Belgium, Liverpool fans charged the Juventus section, resulting in the death of 39 Italian supporters and international condemnation. The next day, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declared a war on “the hooligan problem.” While it may be one of Thatcher’s less remembered speeches, it would change football in the UK permanently for the better. 20 years later, hooliganism is all but extinct from the stadiums, but sport and football has a new form of hooliganism to cope with. That is the rise of the online hooligan. Social media has provided a new platform for abuse, and fans and sport stars alike are having to learn to cope and face with this booming phenomenon.

football abuse in staggering numbers. In the 2015 season alone, there were over 130,000 abusive messages and posts on various platforms of social media about teams and players in the Premier League.

The main victims? Chelsea FC and the infamous Mario Balotelli. During his ill-fated year at Liverpool, the wonderfully gifted but opinion splitting striker made only a measly 16 appearances in the League, yet managed to receive over 8000 abusive slants online in just 9 months. Of these messages 52% were racially orientated.

Across the league, race dominated the form of abuse found online, with gender and sexual orientation also prominent. Unsurprisingly, Twitter and Facebook - the spearheads of the social media movement - were the main platforms for the abuse, with Twitter accounting for 88% of this abuse. You only need to read the responses to a Michael Owen tweet to realise just how easy and quick the sad lowlifes of the ‘troll’ sphere unite to hurl repetitious muck and damnation online all in the comfort of their sofas.

The verbal and physical violence that plagued British football through the 70’s and 80’s has found a new home behind the keyboard and the screen

Football has always been the sport synonymous with hooliganism. Even Hollywood has embraced this fact, with cult films like ‘Green Street’ and ‘Rise of the Footsoldier’ stylising the heightened fan violence that can come with football. But since 1985 there has been a clear decrease in violence or hooligan related incidents at football matches. Heightened policing, controlled seating and the very economics of football have assisted to make hooliganism a pathetic and unusual occurrence. Once the working class game, ever increasing prices of tickets to top end matches has caused a shift in attendance to the middle class, which has created more controlled yet docile fan atmosphere. You still get the occasional reversion to the old ways; Millwall fans comically fought each other at Wembley in 2013, while England verses Russia at 2016’s European Championships proved a feisty affair both on and off the pitch.

Hooliganism is still rife in Russia, and England fans found that out the hard way.

Hooliganism, it would seem, has moved off in the pitch and into the technological world. It has embraced social media in the same way we all have. The verbal and physical violence that plagued British football through the 70’s and 80’s has found a new home behind the keyboard and the screen, and no athlete or sport star can remain hidden from the ‘troll’ phenomenon.

A study by the anti-discrimination group ‘Kick It Out’ revealed the extent to online

That isn’t to say that online ‘troll’s can’t be controlled, or at least combatted. Thatcher’s ‘war on the hooligan problem’ has had a technological update as football joins the war against the online trolls which has been plaguing the entertainment industry.

‘Kick It Out’ have been active in this regard taking steps to establish a group of experts to combat on line football related hate crime, while the police have had some results. A famous example of this happened in 2012 when a student at Swansea University was found guilty of racially mocking the on-pitch cardiac arrest of ex-Bolton footballer Fabrice Muamba.

Little did Liam Stacey realise posting “Lol. Fuck Muamba. He’s Dead” and telling other black people to “go pick some cotton” would result in a 56 day prison sen-

tence. Recorded social media crimes have boomed in recent years- doubling on Twitter between 2011 and 2013- and online hooliganism has been very much part of that.

But it is not only the fans that now have to be careful. The sports stars themselves have to be more cautious than ever when controlling their social media output.

While Twitter has allowed more personal access to the glitz and glamour, or just outright boring lives of the words sports stars, one dodgy tweet can have severe consequences. Sky Sports darts pundit and ex-world champion Eric Bristow found this out the hard way. In November 2016, at the height of the FA’s ongoing scandal into child abuse in football, Bristow inexplicably decided the world needed to know his nonsensical opinion on the matter. He brandished the victims of sexual abuse ‘wimps’ for not ‘sorting out’ their abusers in later life and went on to link paedophilia to homosexuality. Following public outcry Sky Sports were quick to drop to quick the once legend of darts.

There are countless more examples of sports stars not thinking before typing, and online fan wars rage on from boxing to basketball.

There is an argument that USA’s success at 2016’s Ryder Cup was fuelled by the brother of The Open winner Danny Willet. His attempt to smear American golf fans as “brainless, pudgy basement-dwelling irritants” only brought commendation from both sides, and created one of the feistiest Ryder Cups in recent years.in an instant Aside from the rare public outbreak, what people see of hooligans today is now increasingly pinned to the cinema screen and social media. Twitter and Facebook has created a world were ‘trolls’ and disgruntled sports fans can push the boundaries of what is socially acceptable, and a place where sport stars can see their careers crushed in an instant. The rise of the keyboard soldier is alive, but the authorities are beginning to fight back.

Twitter and Facebook has created a world were ‘trolls’ and disgruntled sports fans can push the boundaries of what is socially acceptable, and a place where sport stars can see their careers crushed in an instant

Page 23

pi magazine 717 | politics

The Places in Between: Warzone Tourism in the Modern Day

T

ravelling to destinations that are of places of war, death and tragedy can be traced back to guided tours in Cornwall that included visits to watch hangings of criminals. Last year, the socalled ‘dark tourism’ industry was estimated to be worth upwards of $300bn.

“Budget travel to destinations your mother would rather you stayed away from” adorns the home page of the Young Pioneer Tours (YPT) website. “I founded YPT way back in 2008” explains Gareth Johnson, “as I realised there was nothing in the way of a budget company that catered for the demographic of people who would not usually do group tours”. This company specialise in tours to destinations ‘off the beaten track’. Yet simply ‘off the beaten track’ might be a slight understatement, with destinations such as Iran, Chernobyl, and Afghanistan. YPT have become one of the leading companies in the growing war and dark tourism markets with one of the widest ranges of destinations, with a recent expansion into the Middle East.

Page 24

Johnson describes the allure of Iran, a country slowly opening back up to the world, but still with numerous human rights complications, as having “a very bad reputation as being an extremely repressive state”. His company offers thrill seekers the chance to visit the country for themselves and separate fact from fiction.

An Afghanistan tour, a state scarred from recent war and currently in the early stages of democracy, sold out in under two hours; even with the Foreign Office advising against “all but essential travel” to the country due to a “high threat of terrorism and kidnapping”. Trips to Somaliland and Eritrea, with similar warnings from the Foreign Office, have also sold-out. With packages ranging from £400 to £2,000, warnings apparently attract rather than defer adventure seekers.

A hallmark of YPT’s destinations is a focus on former and existing communist nations with histories of dictatorships. ‘Mao Revolutionary’ tours take travellers to Chairman Mao’s birth and resting place, with annual trips to disaster spot Chernobyl and the

dictatorships of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

Another company, Secret Compass run a sell-out yearly trekking expedition to the Wakhan Corridor in northern Afghanistan, while Untamed Borders offer tailor-made trips to the country with an included ski season and marathon .

Beautiful, but war-ravaged, Syria had 10 million tourists visit in 2010, but after civil war broke out tourism dropped by 95% in 2015. However, even in the midst of a dreadful war and the looming threat of IS, almost 100,000 tourists visited the country in 2016. Ancient World Tours offer an 8-day trip around the safer parts of Syria, while trips from Israel to its Syrian border to get a glimpse of the fighting are popular. Last September, an advert was released by the Syrian Ministry of Tourism with footage of its beaches and the tagline “Syria always beautiful”.

Karwan Wahed, a tour guide in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, lives and works in the ancient city of Erbil, only an hour from conflict between IS and Kurdish forces in Mosul. Even after IS took control of Mosul

politics | Pi magazine 717

ALEX DEMETRIADI exAMINES THE INTEREST IN CONTEMPORARY DARK TOURISM

in 2010, tourists are still guided around the region by Karwan regularly and he stresses the importance of visitors: “It is important for tourists to travel to Kurdistan, as now the world is starting to recognise Kurdistan and it’s people.” Karwan admits that “most are adventure seekers who want to visit Iraq because they want real adventure, but the media only want to talk about the war, so it is very important to see how warm we are, how peaceful and beautiful the region is.”

Karwan’s livelihood relies on visitors seeking out Kurdistan. Others welcome and have need of tourists too. “Tourism brings in money and jobs to people, hotels have clients, I have a job as a guide, restaurants and taxis have customers” Karwan explains, putting emphasis on the region’s many sights. “When they visit Lalish, they learn about the story of the Yazidis. When they visit the frontlines they learn about the Peshmerga and when they visit Sadam’s palace they can understand how he protected his power. Halabja, where Sadam Hussein’s gas attacked killed thousands of Kurds, allows for the appreciation of our resilience.”

Alongside all of this, Karwan believes that “tourists are amazing in that they help us learn about the outside world. We have so many things in common.”

When visiting Iraqi Kurdistan, the moral of the visit is less problematic than with about tourism to North Korea. YPT’s mantelpiece trip is to North Korea (DPRK) and is at the forefront of tourism development in the country, with trips including scuba diving and a New Year’s Eve outing. Claims have been made that sightseeing holidays to the ‘Hermit Kingdom’ only serve to empower the regime. YPT founder Johnson admits that this is something that the company regularly considers, but denies the idea that tourism props up the regime. He holds that the money received from tourism is a miniscule amount and that if tourism were to stop, the country would still function as normal. “The money supports guides, waiters and hotel staff,” he explains, “tourism can also change perceptions and prejudices by breaking down barriers.”

A trip to North Korea is not without its dangers - American student Otto Warmbier was detained and sentenced to 15 years of labour for stealing a poster

Some defectors claim that tourism’s effects are “1% positive, 99% negative.”

However, dark tourism has continued and many claim its continuation is important to both parties. Journalist Nigel Richardson explains that “tourism is the puncture in the membrane sealing the DPRK from the outside world, it’s important for Americans to see North Koreans as normal people, just as it is for Koreans to see Americans as this too.”

In a statement to hotel staff in Tehran and Pyongyang, and to all of those partaking in war tourism, Richardson implores: “If you shut the door, you close off hope.”

A trip to communist North Korea is not without its dangers. American student Otto Warmbier was detained and sentenced to 15 years of labour for stealing a poster.

Page 25

Pi Magazine 717 | Travel

Luke Conor Baker & Matthew Chew consider study abroad options and question whether they are available to all

S

tudying abroad can seem like a fairly straightforward endeavour. Every year, a group of third years from all manner of subject areas disappear to another country to study and live as “one of the locals”. They come back the following September with a lot of fun stories, a more active Instagram account, and usually some proficiency in their target language.

Yet, there are a number of factors when considering a year abroad that aren’t immediately obvious, especially to those who haven’t experience it first-hand. The planning involved is less simplistic than it seems – from visas, to fees, to quotas. These obstacles are difficult and time-consuming to overcome. Additionally, there is the question of eligibility for a study abroad year. Is it truly an option available to every student, or another privilege to be enjoyed by the few?

The most typical year abroad placement is a European university exchange with Erasmus. Contrary to widespread belief, Erasmus is not just open to modern foreign language students, and any student enrolled on an integrated study abroad degree can apply. If successful, the Erasmus Programme supports you both financially (with grants) and administratively (with systems like the Erasmus Student Network.) One unsung benefit of arranging a year abroad of this type: as an EU initiative, it simplifies many complications such as visas, health insurance, and university fees.

Although the situation will undoubtedly change with Brexit Secretary David Davis refusing to guarantee the longevity of this scheme, as it currently stands the system works as a simple exchange. Institutions “swap” students for a year, meaning fees are equalised, and there’s a vastly reduced application process. Combined with the benefit of European Health Insurance and open borders, Erasmus placements are a comparatively simple, cheap and established means of studying abroad, accessible to the vast majority of students – especially given the Erasmus grant for less privileged students. Even despite the impending threat of Brexit to participation in the Erasmus scheme, the UK is one of the only member states to also offer the Erasmus grant with language teaching, meaning added financial benefit to students partaking in a placement of this type. Erasmus is also a long-established programme which holds much prestige both in Britain and on

Page 26

the continent due to its showing of autonomy, ambition, and immersion in a different culture.

international applicant to year abroad, before considering accommodation, cost of living, and flights.

Compared to the straightforwardness of Erasmus, placements elsewhere tend not to be so simple. Perhaps understandably given the relative administrative parity of European countries, the road to a year abroad for Brits wanting to study further afield is far more complex.

One foundation, the Fulbright Commission, exists to facilitate applications to an American year abroad as a British student.

As well as guidance and support, their “Fulbright Awards” scholarship is available. High costs still remain though: the USA is a costly choice for study abroad, and might be something only available to students from wealthier backgrounds, especially if they are unable to secure an additional scholarship.

As well as westwards, students also look to the East. Studying abroad in a Far East Asian nation, such as China, Japan, Singapore, or even down in under in Australia is a unique experience as well as an opportunity to engage with life in a continent and culture wholly different to the Western world. The UCL School of Management is looking to establish a dual-degree programme offering joint study in London and China. This will expand upon the small group of programmes of this type that UCL already offers, such as the ESPS dual-degree scheme with La Sorbonne in Paris. This new initiative shows how highly UCL regards study abroad programmes, and will provide a route to year abroad to a student group with which it is not typically associated.

North America provides a very particular case. While the appeal of the USA is particularly relevant to students from non-foreign language degrees given that English is the predominant language no standard system such as UCAS or Erasmus exists in

Erasmus placements are a comparatively simple, cheap and established means of studying abroad, accessible to the vast majority of students – especially given the Erasmus grant the USA. Unless your specific degree programme has links with American or Canadian universities in an exchange similar to Erasmus (a few at UCL do have these), all applications are individual and intensive.

Also, in contrast to Erasmus there is usually the requirement to sit entrance exams such as SATs to “win”, accompanied by a lengthy, complex student visa application process, not to mention the various differences of what is and isn’t allowed stateside.

Depending on where you find yourself, states have differing laws and regulations for things such as working part time, tenancy agreements, and of course, drinking alcohol.

The largest obstacle when considering studying in America is college fees. University study in North America is hugely expensive, and the student loan system is not formalised by government as is the case in Britain. A 2016 report suggested it would cost $33,215 (£27,000) in college fees for an

It is important, both on an academic and a socially progressive level, to understand the different ways in which cultures around the world work, and a study abroad exchange certainly provides one of the more intriguing and intense ways to achieve this.

It allows students an insight into the “necessary” and “important” aspects in a given culture. As an integrated part of your studies, it may involve another year of tuition fees, hard work, and culture shock, but is an opportunity with invaluable long term benefits – a crucial first step in our increasingly globalised working world.

As to the question of “right or privilege?”, having compared Europe, America, and Asia, it becomes clear that study abroad is not a completely level playing field, but with the right determination, precise planning, and a level of financial prowess, the world of study abroad is certainly a possibility and proverbial oyster for young people today.

Travel | Pi Magazine 717

Study Abroad: a right or a privilege?

Page 27

Pi Magazine 717| Lifestyle

WHY WE NEED TO

#FREETHENIPPLE ELLIE HIBBERD DISCUSSES THE IMPORTANCE OF FREEING THE FEMALE NIPPLE

Page 28

Lifestyle | Pi Magazine 717

I

s there really anything particularly sexy about a nipple? Anatomically speaking, nipples are actually pre-gender. Foetuses grow them before developing their genitals, and yet we have somehow managed to conceive a fundamental difference between male and female nipples whereby one is asexual, and the other apparently contains a woman’s entire sexuality within one little circle. If you see a man’s nipple, chances are you won’t think twice about it. If you see a woman’s nipple, all of a sudden you feel like a lewd voyeur and don’t quite know where to look. Strictly speaking, in the UK it is legal for both men and women to go topless in public, so long as it is not construed as an attempt to offend or assault anyone. But that doesn’t necessarily align with what is socially expected of us as female nipple-bearers, which is to cover up so as not to appear promiscuous or offensive… unless you want a lot of uncomfortable stares, awkward eye contact and disapproving tuts.

If you flip it on its head and imagine a male celebrity posing for a selfie of his well-toned torso, would he get the same slut-shaming reaction?

Famously, Instagram and Facebook don’t allow the exposure of female nipples unless said woman is breastfeeding or if the image is displaying post-mastectomy scars, in which case the nipple is usually no longer even there. They don’t even seem to have a problem with overtly sexual pictures so long as that teeny part of pigmented skin is covered. And this is where it all starts to get ridiculous. If a woman’s breast is exposed on Instagram, but the nipple is covered by a cut-out of a male nipple copied and pasted over the top, Instagram has no grounds to remove the image. It’s suddenly not offensive anymore. This realisation has of course led to a lot of tongue-in- cheek posts, such as a generic male nipple template to paste over female nipples to help “make the world a safer place”, created by Micol Hebron (@unicornkiller1), feminist and professor at Chapman University. Orange Is The New Black actor Matt McGorry (@mattmcgorry) even cut out images of fe-

male nipples from posts by Chrissy Teigen (@chrissyteigen) and Miley Cyrus (@ mileycyrus) which had previously been removed by Instagram and pasted them over his own nipples, an image which Instagram apparently has no problem with as it has not been taken down. New account @genderless_nipples posts close- up images of both male and female nipples without specifying which is which, making it of course impossible to tell the difference.

Instagram even removed one of their images of a male nipple because it didn’t follow their community guidelines, meaning they had assumed it belonged to a woman.

The irony is almost too much to bear. Actually, scrolling through endless pictures of zoomed in nipples makes you wonder why on earth they’ve ever been considered sexy in the first place.

Now this may all appear at first glance to be a bit of a petty and unnecessary fight, something that’s been over-politicised for the sake of it. So, why do we even need Free the Nipple? This movement, among others, is all part of a bigger picture where women’s bodies are hyper-sexualised and controlled on a level that men’s are simply not. Free the Nipple is part and parcel of a bigger mission for women to reclaim their own bodies from judgemental viewers. To say that it is socially acceptable for a man to walk down the street on a hot day without a shirt, but shocking for a woman to do so, implies that women’s bodies are overtly and exclusively sexual, even against our own will. The sexualisation of breasts goes as far as to shame women into not feeding their babies in public, which is essentially their primary and most important function. Nipples are not a sex organ. Above all, they are a means of nourishing a baby, an instinct which precedes any kind of societal influence and prudishness on sex.

It makes many women ashamed of their own breasts, insecure about overexposing them, and uncomfortable seeing other women unashamedly bare all.

I, a feminist woman and Free the Nipple advocate, fall far more into the latter category than into the no-shits- given attitude of Cara Delevingne, Miley Cyrus or Lena Dunham. While I applaud these women and all feminist activists for reclaiming their own bodies and enduring the intolerant cultural reaction that inevitably follows, this is something I and many other women may never feel comfortable doing ourselves. But that doesn’t make us hypocrites or anti-feminist. This is all about

choices being made by women for women and regaining control of our own bodies, whether that means naked dresses á la Rihanna or baggy woollen jumpers, inasmuch that some men don’t feel comfortable removing their top on a sunny day in the park.

When Kim Kardashian tweeted her infamous naked (albeit censored) mirror selfie, she received a phenomenally hateful response from social media trolls and the likes of Piers Morgan, who accused her of being jealous of the attention her “scantily clad” younger sisters are getting, and suggested it was time for her to cover up now that she’s hit 35 and is a mother to two children. If you flip it on its head and imagine a male celebrity posing for a selfie of his well-toned torso, would he get the same slut-shaming reaction? Hate on Kim Kardashian all you like, but Piers Morgan does not get to dictate what she does with her body, shame her for being sexy, or judge when she might be ‘past it’. Meanwhile, in France, women in burkinis spent the summer fearing arrest or being forced to remove layers for covering up too much.

Telling girls to start covering themselves as soon as they hit puberty while they watch their male friends run around shirtless instils a shame in their own bodies that will likely last a lifetime Telling girls to start covering themselves as soon as they hit puberty while they watch their male friends run around shirtless instils a shame in their own bodies that will likely last a lifetime, as if by showing too much they’ll be giving something away, and implies a dangerous quality to the female body. Of course, there will be unwanted and distasteful reactions to women freeing their nipples, but women’s rights movements have never achieved anything by caring too much what people say, do, or think. I’m looking at you, Piers Morgan.

Page 29

Pi Magazine 717| Lifestyle

Makeup:

thers ress O % 5 b-

Jo My For

To Imp

M

7%

Confidence - 87%

why do you wear makeup?

No - 42% Yes - 58%

do you feel comfortable leaving the house without makeup?

ake-up is not a recent phenomenon. In fact, evidence dates back to Ancient times, when women would line their eyes with kohl and their lips with red ochre. While the cosmetics industry may have changed drastically since then, it’s clear that women and girls have always worn make-up. Having said this, we’re wearing it now more than ever.

In 2014 alone, more than £1.3 billion was spent in Britain on make-up. Add to this the 474 days which the average woman spends doing her make-up in her lifetime, and it’s obvious that we are investing significant amounts of time and money into what is essentially painting our faces.

So, what is the reason for this? Do we wear make-up because it makes us feel more confident? Or is it because we feel pressured by society? If the latter is correct, then is makeup not just another example of how society remains sexist?

I created a survey asking women these questions. Out of the 100 who answered, an overwhelming majority (87% to be exact), said that the reason they wear make-up is for confidence. Only 5% said they have to wear it for their job, and 7% to impress others. This suggests that, for most of us, make-up is something that we wear for ourselves, not for others.

Another question I asked in my survey was: “Do you feel comfortable leaving the

Page 30

house without make-up?”. Over half, 58%, responded that they did. Again, suggesting that we are wearing make-up IF and WHEN we want to, not because we feel like we have to.

“When I have a face of make-up, I feel powerful, I feel ready to tackle the day”, a friend who wears make-up religiously tells me. Another says that for her, “make-up is something I enjoy doing. Like tennis, or dancing, it’s my hobby - sometimes I wear it, and sometimes I don’t”.

Jasmin Barrow, a Birmingham Universi-

for most of us, make-up is something that we wear for ourselves, not for others ty student, recently went viral when she wrote in her blog: “it is a myth that makeup is only used by girls who are shy and insecure”. She uses it because it makes her feel like a “better version” of herself.

This all suggests that make-up is not inherently sexist. Women are making the choice to wear it because it makes them feel good, and if they don’t want to, then they don’t wear it.

But, is it really that simple? Whilst it is great that make-up helps us feel good about ourselves, surely it would be better if we all felt

Lifestyle | Pi Magazine 717

pressure or pleasure?

Megan Frost delves further into women’s relationship with make-up confident already, without make-up?

The problem is that society does not make this easy. From a young age, girls are sent messages that we should be dressing up, wearing jewellery, and painting our faces. Take Barbie - a doll targeted at girls as young as 3. Her blonde hair and perfectly made-up face reinforces all of the female stereotypes that, as a progressive society, we should have left behind years ago.

Disney is also a culprit of this. Do you ever see a make-up free, hairy-legged princess win her prince charming? No. So, even before we can walk, girls are already faced with the idea that women should have a certain look, inevitably involving make-up.

It’s here that make-up can easily be seen as something that is sexist - when wearing it no longer feels like a choice.

This idea is not specific to make-up. Air Hostesses at British Airways are also required to have “clear skin”, “nails at least an inch long”, and wear “high heels”. In a country where women have been able to vote for almost a century, these archaic requirements seem baffling.

You have probably heard of Nicola Thorp, whose case is a perfect example of this.

make-up can easily be seen as something that is sexist when wearing it no longer feels like a choice

Companies that include make-up as part of their dress code are a perfect example of this. Looking presentable, neat, and tidy are all standard, non-gender specific requirements of a dress code. Make-up is not.

Are men ever asked to wear make-up for work? Of course not. So why should it ever be a requirement for women?

Thorp made the news earlier this year when she was laughed at by bosses for refusing to wear high heels to work. Her job as a corporate receptionist involved being on her feet for nine hour shifts, escorting clients to meeting rooms. She left the job, and subsequently set up a petition demanding that women have the right to wear flat formal shoes at work, which received over 150,000 signatures in six months.

The dress code for air hostesses at British Airways states: “make-up is mandatory” for women, and lipstick, foundation, and blusher should be worn at a minimum.

There is no valid reason for this, other than to make women look more desirable. The “red lipstick only” policy reinforces this.

Nicola Thorp is, of course, right. Women should not be forced to wear heels at work, nor should they be required to wear makeup, or nail varnish. If they are, then this is surely sexism. It discriminates against women based on their sex, which is essentially the definition of sexism.

The important point to make here is that I am not by any means trying to argue that make- up itself is ‘sexist’. It has the power to give us confidence, it is a way to express ourselves, and for many females, make-up is something that they enjoy doing.

So, as long as we can choose to wear it, make-up remains a fantastic creation which, in the words of make-up artist Lisa Eldridge, “makes me feel powerful and ready to face any situation”. But when it is not a choice, when women are required by dress codes, or feel pressured by society to wear make-up, then it is merely another example of how women are expected to conform to society’s sexist expectations.

Page 31

Pi Magazine 7## | section

mu pi magazine’s arts

art & performance Page ##

•

film & tv

use

Section | Pi Magazine 7##

s & culture sections

music

•

literature Page ##

MUSE |THEATRE

O

Jam

Fr en o t m d w id h I at fr a ee th

of With co ers nv po ict on s a lo nd ok ex s a -co t t nv he ict th is able to pros, a eat vide day-to- day s t re c inspiration to a dehe om mographic who often sys pa believe that society has tem nie forgotten about them. The company is women-only, and inc s ma focuses on women’s prisons (they re kin make up just 5% of the general prison as g a population, but 25% of the self-harming ing d and abuse occurs within them). By doing ly iff this, and focusing its productions on a prisfai ere on-awareness theme that is relatable to its ls nc players, Clean Break highlights the plight th e i of a group of people whom a lot of the em n t that their

ur prisons are failing.

That is unequivocal. An overall 46% reoffending rate for 2015/16; all-time high levels of selfharm; the most murders committed behind bars that we have ever seen. To top it all off, according to the 2016 Bromley Briefings report, only 16% of those leaving prison and referred to the government’s work placement scheme stay in their occupations for over six months. There seems little advantage to the current plan of too little too late ‘rehabilitation’, an overactive social stigma, and plotless electioneering from today’s politicians simply to attract votes.

Indeed, the Scandinavian system of including prisoners in society as much as possible, and promoting positive recreational activities, greatly contributes to the comparatively miniscule reoffending rates in those countries. Based on this, it seems particularly encouraging that an emerging group of theatre companies specialise in working with offenders in institutions to develop new creative skills, promote interaction with regular society, and to build confidence in those most disenfranchised within the world we live in.

the Scandinavian system of including prisoners in society as much as possible, andpromoting positive recreational activities, greatly contributes to the comparatively miniscule reoffending rates in those countries One of these such companies is Clean Break, which has been around since 1979. It not only runs programs inside prisons, but also outside – to bring those who are recently released and at danger of reoffending successfully into the social culture. Indeed, theatre encourages a passion that other vocations cannot – simply because it revolves around our own very personal endeavours and our culture. When released from prison, many people are confronted with either unemployment (often leading directly back into crime), or a dead-end job. By facilitating an interesting project for once-prisoners to work on in their spare time, Clean Break

Page 36

es

to rm

United Kingdom would like to simply forget – hopefully facilitating an end goal of dramatically reducing stigma surrounding prisoners. This makes life easier for them, and of course discourages crime, so benefits all of society.

The Synergy theatre project is another such organisation. It views its plays as a form of ‘art therapy’ for prisoners – and even pays them for their work part-time. The company has huge heft from various high-level sponsors who will pay for valuable actions – such as sending former prisoners to drama school, to pick up a degree, and make the most out of their life. A 2007 report from the Anne Peaker Centre claims that this company alone has created a reduction in crime in the area in which it operates by bringing children into prisons to witness the drama, and thereby dissuading them from making the wrong choices in life. In fact, Synergy themselves claim that they see a reoffending reduction in 75% of those they work with, and an 85% increase in awareness of the consequences of crime for the 2500 young people who view their shows each year.

Armed with their iconic masks, Geese Theatre Company utilises a range of behavioural theories to work out which strands of drama will be particularly pertinent to each person. They believe, and have proven (according to Arts Alliance studies) that such activities broaden the scope of social interaction, boost self-esteem, and encourage productivity in participants. Of course, this approach can also be hard hitting, with the company themselves suggesting that an offender play the role of a victim – to better understand and empathise with the fact

ee ?

he

crime had an impact on other people. Some productions by the company also involve participation from the audience. Their play, Visiting Order, which toured prisons to be seen by inmates, encouraged viewers to advise the players on the moves they should make during family visits – and to give advice on emotions.

liv

es

Experiences like these draw people together, and create a shared sense of community which can effectively translate into ‘outside life’. Once again, social inclusion is perhaps the main objective goal in reducing reoffending rates. On another level, the company also works in secure hospitals to encourage mental rehabilitation – yet again an area of practise that the government of today would have us forget about.

When all’s said and done, we must admit that our prison system is teetering on the edge. Of course, the main obstacles ahead are to effectively deter potential criminals, and to rehabilitate past offenders to integrate into society. The three companies discussed above, along with various others, are taking up the slack from an executive seemingly sometimes more preoccupied with their personal image. These companies help to achieve these objectives, but also to do so much more: they provide purpose in life to people who could see none, they provide a distraction from the harsh realities of living in a stigmatised society, and they have the potential to unlock creative talent that can inspire us all. Encore.

THEATRE| MUSE Contemplating theatre censorship, it is unlikely the first thing to come to mind is British Theatre. A more likely thought, perhaps, is of Russia, with its strict laws concerning free speech, and its constant incarcerations and disappearances of people who dare question them. Or else, maybe of the famous Belarus Free Theatre, a company of theatre makers who have been fired, shunned, or banned from creating in their own country, and so tour various European countries relating their experiences. Issues of theatre censorship in Britain often focussed around the strict moral and aesthetic guidelines of the Lord Chamberlain’s Office. Their stranglehold was broken in 1968, as the Royal Court and its angry young men stormed the scene and apparently liberated British theatre until the present day.

However, if we let our minds linger on British censorship for a moment, it becomes clear that it is not liberated. Certain plays get made, and certain plays don’t. Certain plays are advertised, and certain plays are not. Beyond this some plays are funded, but most play aren’t. The British theatre funding system is selective and prejudiced; in fact, it’s a kind of censorship in itself.

The British theatre funding system is selective and prejudiced Funding effects theatre censorship at various levels, the most obvious is the corporate sponsorship of productions as most theatres rely on private funding to some

extent. The National Theatre has over thirty corporate sponsors - including Goldman Sachs, Shell, and American Express. I remember reading a particularly awful article in the always awful Telegraph a few years ago about how all theatre should be privately funded, as it meant only what sold would be produced and, by implication, only what audiences wanted to see.

This was a preposterous suggestion, considering it totally dismisses the role of the theatre as a discussion forum as certain topics would surely be banned. If big companies are funding a play they won’t want it to be about the faults of late market capitalism and BP wouldn’t fund a play about climate change. As a consequence, private funding means only uncontroversial plays about business friendly issues will be produced - unless a company wants to appear caring, and thus fling itself into questioning for the sake of positive publicity. This seems unlikely and so, overall, plays that invite discussion and questioning would cease to be made.

Possibly more destructive than corporate sponsorship, however, is the selection and endowment process of the Arts Council.

This is the public body granted seventy million pounds each year to invest in the cultural enrichment of Britain. This is a good spirited idea, and could be extremely beneficial, but it is structured and carried out poorly. Disproportionately, larger theatres and arts companies are given funding. For example, in 2015, the four biggest organisations - the Royal Opera House, Southbank Centre, the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company received £77 million between them, the same as the smallest five-hundred organisations. While their sheer scale may justify this gap, it still seems a huge disparity. It is particularly bad, too, when we consider

that three of the four are based in London, which leaves regional theatre with far less funding even though they are far more in need of nourishment. A report a few years ago claimed government spending on the arts in the capital was equivalent to £69 per head, whereas elsewhere in England it was just £4.60.

Furthermore, these funds are not evenly distributed amongst the arts. Opera, receives huge sums, despite having a fairly niche audience while jazz, which has a similar sized demographic, receives far less funding, as do other types of music which may appeal to wider audiences. Certain genres of work, are therefore stifled.

The theatre in Britain is far less free than we may initially think The theatre in Britain is far less free than we may initially think. When we look in a Southbank Centre programme and see festivals of world cultures, or of women, we may feel as if we are the pinnacle of cutting edge arts. However, there is work out there that may push us even more, will show us new ideas and innovate against convention, work that has new voices than those well-heard ones of the big-salaried artistic directors in London. It is hard to say if there will ever be a solution to these censorship problems as art funding will always exists.

Nonetheless, it seems surprising that noone can come up with a better solution.

Where have all the angry young men gone?

Susannah Bain tackles theatre censorship

Page 37

Page 38

S

pike Lee’s latest film outing, produced for Amazon Prime, is, in a word, pertinent. Chi-Raq (a compound of Chicago and Iraq for those still catching up) is a film designed to remind Americans that though they mourn soldiers lost in their many foreign wars, there is another war on their domestic home turf killing far more - the exact numbers are shown to the audience via flashy graphics as the film opens.

A loose adaptation of Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, Lee combines fantastical satire with some hard truths. Unfortunately, the film itself gets lost in the mix.

Milo Garner dissects Spike Lee’s take on Chicago gang violence

CHI-RAQ REVIEW: PREACHY, FANTASTICAL SATIRE

Pi Magazine 717 | film

But first: what works well? A notable aspect from its first frames is that Chi-Raq is a very well-produced film. The camera is fluid, the colours vivid, and the direction effective. The actors are also choreographed excellently in the multiple set-pieces throughout the film, and the rhyming verse is tempered just enough so that it doesn’t become grating. The film itself, following the thread of Aristophanes’ original, concerns women going on a sex strike in order to force the men of Chicago to stop the ceaseless violence. The satire itself, like the original, is very over the top – but this is an asset of the film. Some of the very best scenes of Chi-Raq are where it abandons reality completely. In one, Teyonah Parris’ Lysistrata (who she plays extremely well throughout) infiltrates an army base, and, through seduction and subterfuge, manages to trick a racist general, his office adorned with Confederate flags, to mount a Civil War cannon (aptly named Whistling Dick) and ride it in a wild sexual fury. It really is as surreal as that sentence implies: and it makes for a gratifying journey into the ridiculous. Another highlight is Samuel L. Jackson as the chorus, entering the frame every once in a while in an ostentatious orange three-piece to keep the audience up to date with the story. In fact, acting across the board is mostly good, including a surprising turn from John Cusack. Even Nick Cannon manages to perform decently, even if his character isn’t too interesting.

On to what doesn’t work so well, that mainly being, quite strangely, how earnest the film is. While this would usually not be considered a criticism of a film dealing with such serious issues as this one, it is more jarring due to how this earnestness is handled in context. Consider the cannon-scene I have described above in tandem with another in which one character describes, in some detail, real-world solutions to Chicago gun crime, citing statistics to the tune of a surprisingly generic string section (for all the musical potential this film had, its or-

chestral soundtrack was a let-down). This is essentially how the film is structured, with the ludicrous (and usually enjoyable) satirical scenes appended with scenes designed to be emotionally shocking, like the death of an innocent just moments after two gangsters shooting each other was played for laughs. Satire is followed by scenes that are overtly preachy. And I don’t say that in a derogatory manner – at one point a priest, played admirably by John Cusack as mentioned earlier, delivers an actual sermon on gun crime, without a hint of irony. It isn’t an awful scene inherently, but to insert an uncut and entirely straight-faced polemic into the middle of a satire defeats the object of the genre – imagine if President Muffley were to have described the nuclear arms race with the USSR exactly as it was, stats and all, in Dr. Strangelove – the power, point, and comedy of the film would have been totally undermined. And that is exactly what happens in Chi-Raq. These tonal issues aside, the content of these more earnest sections is also somewhat concerning – toward the end of the film Lee essentially lays out a manifesto for how Chicago can be fixed, including the building of a hospital, a community centre, and a plan for total employment. This particular scene comes across as rather strange as the film isn’t actually mocking the ridiculous assertion that the state could suddenly employ everyone in Chicago, yet at the same time also clearly isn’t offering it as realistic solution. This leaves one puzzled at what the exact intention of this line was, if not simply naivety on the part of Lee. Given this was a production for Amazon Prime, so mainly intended for a small-screen mass audience, it is understandable why Lee might want to impart such didactic sections as the preacher scene, and even his utopic ideas towards the end; satire works better when not weighed down by these real-life issues though. Instead, satire works better when it delivers its point through ridicule and abstraction, something Chi-Raq does not often enough employ.

Ultimately Chi-Raq, despite its successes, still has issues – the constant jumps in tone and focus result in an unwieldy pace, one that renders its electric energy a little tiresome in its final twenty minutes, not helped by a few too many jokes that don’t quite hit the mark. Unfortunately, despite some fine moments, Chi-Raq therefore doesn’t quite work as a cohesive whole – but as failures go it’s a noble one. Despite its artistic issues Lee’s didactic message is delivered clearly, and it’s indisputably one that needs to be heard.

film| Pi Magazine 717

Page 39

muse | Literature

Banned Literature: Ancient History or Current Affairs?

Rafy Hay asks just how far society has come in regard to banning books.

Page 40

Literature | muse

B

anning books is often the go-to for the protectors of fragile ideologies.

The Bolsheviks famously banned their first book, the dystopian classic We

by Yevgeny Zamyatin, only four years after the 1917 October Revolution. In the West, famous banned books include D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Allen Ginsberg’s poem ‘Howl’, J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, and Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird.

This last book has recently come into the spotlight again, after being banned in a school in Virginia, USA, for its extensive use of contemporary racist language. Also banned by the school was another classic that explores America’s race relations, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. The stated reason for this latest attempt to blind American children to the greatness of their country’s literary tradition was fear that exposure to the racist attitudes and language expressed by the characters in both books would desensitise children to racism.

Those wanting to limit artistic freedoms have not really disappeared to the extent it may seem In the words of Marie Rothstein-Williams, the parent of a mixed-race child studying in Accomack County, who raised the issue: “there is so much racial slurs in there and offensive wording that you can’t get past that, and right now we are a nation divided as it is… What are we teaching our children? We’re validating that these words are acceptable.” In other words, to learn about racist attitudes of the past through literature would somehow legitimise those attitudes to the teenagers reading the novels…

You don’t need me to tell you how ridiculous this idea is, but it’s worth examining this instance of censorship in the context of previous bans of literature in the West.

The most famous banned book of all time, at least in Britain and the West, is probably the erotic romantic novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover, first published by D.H. Lawrence privately in 1928, but the cause of a highly publicised and influential obscenity tri-

al in 1960. The novel deals with a married upper-class woman, the eponymous Lady Chatterley, and her love affair with the gamekeeper of the house, Oliver Mellors.

The trial was a battle waged by those who alleged that literature containing erotic acts and (for the time) shocking language could deprave and corrupt readers. Their opponents asserted that on the basis of its literary and moral merit, as a book whose main themes include polemical rejection of English society and norms, the publication of Lady Chatterley’s Lover represented a public good and as such exempted it from the Obscene Publications Act. This case set a precedent that gave literary works, even those which offended public tastes, protection from censorship by the state. Many credit the successful defence of Lady Chatterley’s Lover with the start of the freer, more permissive culture of modern Britain.

If Lawrence’s 1928 book was a landmark of literary freedom in Britain, it was predated in America by the release of Allen Ginsberg’s ‘Howl’, a seminal poem by one of the fathers of the Beat movement, which had its own obscenity trial in 1957 after its release a year earlier. ‘Howl’, which celebrated its 60 th anniversary in 2016, is a swirling masterpiece that deals with themes of madness, the intellectual and political underground, dislocation, and deviance from societal norms (this last one most provocatively in terms of drug use and sexuality, including homosexuality).

The stakes were higher than with Lady Chatterley’s Lover: the bookstore manager Shig Murao and publisher Lawrence Ferlinghetti were actually arrested and jailed in San Francisco for Howl and Other Poems’s distribution, until the California State Superior Court affirmed the poem’s “redeeming social importance”.

In the context of actual banning from publishing and imprisonment of distributors, the exclusion of books from schools might seem a lesser battleground for censorship.

However, the type of society we inherit largely depends on the environment our children are exposed to while growing up.

Going back to the statement of the outraged Rothstein-Williams, she seems to suggest that the racist language (over 200 instances of the N-word in Huckleberry Finn and almost 50 in Lee’s classic) is a barrier to the value of the literature, and to its progressive racial politics. Any teenager can see the

fallacies in this argument, and hearteningly many leading the charge against censorship have been high school students. What this says about society, though, is quite interesting. Those wanting to limit artistic freedoms have not really disappeared to the extent it may seem. The Mary Whitehouses and Tipper Gores might be less prominent, but there’s still a strong trend of people hoping to muzzle language and expression in an attempt to protect society from a perceived threat of values.

Are teenagers not trusted to understand the context and underlying messages behind these great works of literature?

In the 50s through to the 80s, this crackdown was from a conservative opinion, worried about obscenity and devaluing of normative values, sexual and social – including of course racial. The children were to be protected from potentially damaging permissiveness and deviance, and authorities fought to keep progressive and shocking books out of the reach of school pupils.

Today, however, the debate is tinged with a slightly different tone. The children are to be protected from things which might make them less progressive, rather than more. Now, aside from the hypocrisy of this occurring in a schooling system which has arguably gone backwards in terms of desegregation, this highlights a potentially disturbing trend. Are teenagers not trusted to understand the context and underlying messages behind these great works of literature?

The materials students are exposed to at school are vital to the development of an inquisitive and critical mind, and banning important works based on their perceived offence is a short-sighted approach which could damage the ability of children to deal with problems and judgements they will eventually have to make. In the immortal words of the Reverend Mother in The Sound of Music, “these walls were not built to shut out problems. You have to face them.” This applies as well to schools as it does to an abbey.

Page 41

Editors-in-chief magazine@pimediaonline.co.uk

Beatrix Willimont Nancy Heath

Comment Editors comment@pimediaonline.co.uk

Dana Moss Charlotte Weekly

Features Editor features@pimediaonline.co.uk Politics Editors politics@pimediaonline.co.uk Science & Technology Editors science@pimediaonline.co.uk Sport Editor sport@pimediaonline.co.uk Lifestyle Editor lifeandstyle@pimediaonline.co.uk Travel Editor travel@pimediaonline.co.uk MUSE Editors arts@pimediaonline.co.uk Design Team design@pimediaonline.co.uk

Adil Sait John Bilton Hayley Spore Pavan Bhatia Imogen Malpas Nicola Chew Bethan Flaherty Luke Conor Baker Anna Monks Sam Taylor Amy Gwinnett Claire Schultz Beatrix Willimont Nancy Heath

President

Alex Hall

Treasurer

Lorna Miri

Vice President

Henry Hill

Marketing Officer Volunteering Officer

Precious Adesina Harry Skinner

Editors-in-chief Pi Magazine

Nancy Heath Beatrix Willimont

Editors-in-chief Pi Online

James Bennett Lydia Webb

Editor-in-chief Pi TV Deputy Editor-in-chief Pi TV Deputy Editor-in-chief News and Investigations

Nada Bashir Sean Osborne Ali Taimur Shabbir

Fidel Castro: man or monster?

Freedom House Index: How free are we?

Review of Spike Lee’s ‘Chi-Raq Is it time to free the nipple?

The Rise of the Keyboard Soldier Warzone tourism: would you do it?