Connect with us

Featured

Does Black Lives Matter Call for Censorship?

Published

on

Black lives matter written on Heart

Is There Ever a Time for Censorship?

Whilst coronavirus continues to dictate our daily lives, protestors line the streets of Britain, as well as the UK to protest for Black Lives Matter and against the protests that are tearing down statues across the UK.

Protests broke out against the protests that removed the statues throughout London. These protests are the aftermath in light of what happened to George Floyd.

George Floyd died on the 25th May at the hands of police brutality in Minneapolis, USA.

There have been widespread protests across both the United States and the UK.

The death of Floyd has pulled the trigger on racism within both countries, and incited a new conversation between the black and non-black communities.

People are speaking out about their experience of racism. This is not just the black community, but the whole BAME (Black, Asian, Minority, Ethnic) community. 

This is opening up a conversation that has long been needed, of people’s relationship to those of another race.

Censorship within the Entertainment Industry

The irony is, whilst the black community speak up, the non-ethnic community is facing censorship. Chris Lilley, the creator of ‘Summer Heights High’ has been censored from Australian Netflix.

It is a difficult conversation to broach when the subject involves stereotyping and entertainment. This is especially true when it concerns comedy. Lilley manages to create his depiction of Australian life within a high school, imitating the characters he deems to portray it.

Chris Lilley has three main characters in Summer Heights High: Jai’me (public school girl), Mr. G (narcissistic school teacher) and Jona from Tonga. Chris Lilley plays all three characters.

The series has been cancelled due to Lilley’s depiction of ‘Jona from Tonga’.

It is of no doubt that ‘Summer Heights High’ is inappropriate for different reasons, but it does not stop it from being funny. It is funny, because those who push boundaries-do tend to be funny. It does not necessarily have anything to do with race either, as stereotypes are being made fun of-across every race.

It is funny because someone is daring to talk about them.

There is also an argument for the pushing of boundaries, for if we did not have that; there would be no reform.

One of Lilley’s characters, Jai’me (public school girl) challenges the notion of white privilege. She is the main character, alongside narcissistic Mr. G.

What is happening within the streets of Britain at present, is essentially ‘a pushing of boundaries’.

I think the conversation needs to centre around ‘what’ racism is. 

What does it actually mean to be racist?

There seems to be a real disparity in this. Children nowadays are growing up, and being taught that any kind of ‘indifference’ is racism. They are therefore calling out anything to be racist, which has implications of its own.

Children are most likely being taught by adults on racism, who do not understand racism. And so they are instead taught ignorance.

The majority of stereotyping within the series is aimed at the ‘white’ stereotypes within the series. However, the unsurprising connotations of including such a character as Jona, has inevitably been questioned. 

This is understandable, yet, what about the other two characters within the series? Is Lilley being racist to white people by depicting two white stereotypes?

Again, the discussion on what ‘racism’ actually is, needs to happen.

Is it right to have censored such a show?

I love ‘Summer Heights High’. It makes me laugh, out loud, and I appreciate it for what it is. If we censor all stereotypes that happen to have a different colour of skin, I think the point is being missed. 

Life is funny because of our differences.

There is an argument that if BAME stereotypes were to be removed in its’ entirety from all corners, would it only be acceptable to make fun of white people?

Does this end racism?

Or does it create it?

Removing BAME members from comedy, suggests they are no longer part of the community.

It also may reinstate that there is a problem time and time again, because it is being avoided, rather than being dealt with.

There is racism within Britain, and there is a conversation that needs to happen within all institutions. 

Is it right to censor reporting of the removal of statues?

Certainly not. It is what is happening right now within our culture, and it needs to be discussed, as it is.

Is it right to censor the lives of the men who partook in the slave trade?

It is in no doubt how emotive a statue of a slave trader must be. The people who tore those statues down, tore down the institutional racism, which is at the heart of the inequality within the United States, but sadly also the United Kingdom.

I understand from a humble perspective, what it must be like to face racism of which, most goes unnoticed, because it is carried within the sub-conscious minds of us all.

Jamelia, the black British singer, was on BBC Breakfast recently. She tells the story of being  pulled over by the police, whilst in her car, for no other reason than the ‘make’ of it, she claims. This is a weekly occurrence. 

There are also statues within London of figures who led the act to abolish slavery, William Wilberforce was one of the main politicians who did so, with the eventual abolition of slavery in 1833.

Yet, this did not stop ‘No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs’, a written statement within Britain, being spouted in every nook and cranny imaginable, from flat lets to pub windows; and this was only in the 1960’s.

There have been callings for reform regarding these statues. It is suggested the statues remain, but plaques are instead used to describe who these people are, and both sides of the story.

I think this is what is important. I think there is only ever small cause for censorship. This is a time that needs every story to come to light. If both sides of the story are conveyed, with the slave traders who have sat so prominently for so long, in the streets of Britain, then there is a chance to understand and learn from it.

If these stories are removed, then it will just be buried, but it will not disappear.

Is it Right to Censor Little Britain?

On the 5th of June, ‘Little Britain’, the British sketch comedy was taken off Netflix, deemed not responsible in the aftermath of George Floyd.

Within the show, both creators depict BAME characters, as well as white characters.

If Little Britain retold the story, without any BAME characters, the white stereotypes would be the only ones left.

Is this right? It could no longer be called Little Britain.

Where it is completely understandable that this might be offensive to some people, the same could be said for the white counterparts.

Stereotypes are a fact of human nature, behavioural patterns which can be good or bad, they are simply how humans relate to each other.

Is it not human nature to laugh at each other?

If this is censored, what do we have left?

If Little Britain negatively affects the way an individual sees another, in relation to the colour of their skin; then it is right it was removed.

However, I think most people are able to rise above stereotypes, and see them just as that.

Does the insinuation of another race and their stereotypes, affect the way Matt Lucas and David Walliams interact with these very communities?

I think this is the real indicator of whether someone is racist or not.

The problem lies with the lack of BAME representatives throughout the broadcasting world. Stereotyping of white communities does not affect white relations within the general population, because there is the disparity in other representations.

When there are so few positive BAME representatives, what do people have to compare to?

In light of this matter, I think it was right to censor Little Britain for the moment, it is too sensitive a time, and changes need to be made, before the subject can be broached constructively.

This is the heart of the conversation that needs to happen.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured

Who Will Guard Gaza’s Future? Inside the International Stabilization Force and the Peace Summit

Published

on

Who-Will-Guard-Gazas-Future-Inside-the-International-Stabilization-Force-and-the-Peace-Summit

As the world turns its gaze toward the upcoming Gaza peace moot scheduled in Sharm el-Sheikh, anticipation mixes with skepticism. Delegations from more than 25 nations, including Egypt, Qatar, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the United States, are expected to participate. The summit’s stated goal is to chart a post-war roadmap for Gaza: one that ensures reconstruction, stability, and long-term governance. Yet, beneath the diplomatic smiles lies a deeper unease. Will this summit bring justice, or simply repackage occupation in the language of peace?

While Egypt positions itself as a mediator and the United States attempts to portray itself as a peace broker, many in the Muslim world view this as an exercise in image management. For Gazans who have endured months of devastation, the word “peace” feels hollow when their children are still being buried beneath rubble.

The International Stabilization Force: A New Guardian or Another Overseer?

Central to the summit’s agenda is the proposed International Stabilization Force (ISF). It is a multinational security body meant to take charge of Gaza once Israeli troops withdraw. According to policy outlines discussed at the Council on Foreign Relations, the ISF would be composed of troops from Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, and Turkey, supported logistically by the U.S. and possibly NATO allies.

Its mission is to oversee security, prevent rearmament, and assist in rebuilding civilian police institutions. Yet this concept immediately triggers questions of legitimacy and control. Who will the ISF answer to, whether it be the United Nations, the Arab League, or Washington? And will it protect Gazans or impose an externally dictated order?

Critics warn that such a force could serve as a buffer between Israel and Gaza rather than a guarantor of Palestinian sovereignty. A security expert quoted, “If the ISF’s mandate comes from Western powers, it may enforce stability at the cost of freedom.”

Gaza’s Sovereignty Between Protection and Control

The idea of international troops in Gaza is not new. Similar arrangements in Lebanon and Bosnia offered mixed results when peacekeeping often turned into passive observation, and local populations remained powerless. For Gazans, the fear is that the ISF might become an instrument to monitor them rather than protect them.

While Israel seeks guarantees that Hamas will not regain control, Palestinians demand something far simpler: the right to self-govern without occupation or military oversight. Many analysts argue that unless the ISF’s command structure includes Palestinian representation, it risks deepening mistrust.

Furthermore, there are legal and ethical dilemmas. If Israeli forces withdraw but still control Gaza’s airspace and borders through the ISF, can Gaza truly be called free? The world has seen this model before, which is an illusion of autonomy wrapped in the language of international cooperation.

The Politics Behind Peace: Competing Interests

Every participating nation arrives with its own agenda. For example, Egypt, leading the ISF, offers regional prestige. For Qatar and Indonesia, participation reinforces solidarity with Palestinians. For the United States, it is a strategic opportunity to maintain influence over the post-war narrative. Yet, for Gaza, each external interest risks turning the strip into a geopolitical chessboard.

Observers note that the absence of any confirmed Israeli participation in the summit is telling. It suggests that while plans are made for Gaza’s future, the voices of those who live there remain marginalized. Without Gazan and broader Palestinian leadership at the table, the summit risks becoming an exercise in deciding the fate of a people without their consent.

Reconstruction and Responsibility: The Road Ahead

Rebuilding Gaza will require an estimated $70 billion, according to updated UN and World Bank figures. Roads, hospitals, power grids, and schools must be reconstructed almost from scratch. The ISF, if deployed, will play a role in securing aid routes and ensuring humanitarian access, but security alone will not heal Gaza. Without justice, accountability, and economic sovereignty, reconstruction will be little more than rebuilding the cage.

Experts emphasize that any real peace must involve lifting the blockade, restoring trade access, and giving Palestinians control over their borders and ports. Without these measures, even billions in reconstruction funds will fail to bring lasting stability.

The Moral Imperative

The peace summit in Egypt and the proposed International Stabilization Force are being presented as symbols of hope. However, hope without accountability is fragile. If the world truly wants to guard Gaza’s future, it must begin by addressing the root cause of its suffering, which is occupation, displacement, and systemic denial of human rights.

True peace cannot be imposed, but it must be built on justice. For Gazans, peace is not about foreign soldiers on their streets. It’s about waking up without fear, owning their land, and rebuilding their lives with dignity. The question that remains is whether the world will finally allow them that chance.

Continue Reading

Crimes Against Humanity

Israel’s Airstrikes on Gaza Reveal the Fragility of Truce

Published

on

Israels-Airstrikes-on-Gaza-Reveal-the-Fragility-of-Truce

When a fragile truce was declared a few days ago, a brief wave of hope washed over Gaza. Families thought they might finally rebuild their shattered homes, search for missing relatives, and sleep without the thunder of jets. However, within days, Israeli warplanes were once again striking the besieged strip. The so-called ceasefire, brokered with international backing, proved to be another chapter in a series of broken promises and shattered faith.

Israel claimed its latest strikes were a “response” to alleged violations by Hamas. Yet, on the ground, the victims were overwhelmingly civilians. Gaza’s health authorities confirmed more than a hundred people killed in the first hours of renewed bombardment. Most of them are women and children. Hospitals, already operating on the brink of collapse, struggled to treat the flood of casualties amid power shortages and dwindling medical supplies.

The truce, meant to bring calm, instead became a cruel illusion. The hum of drones returned, the fear crept back, and families once again fled for survival through rubble-strewn streets. International media outlets described scenes of panic as people searched for shelter, knowing there was none.

Bombardment Under a Banner of Peace

Each new airstrike tears away the thin veil of diplomacy that labels this as a truce. Residential blocks in Khan Younis and Gaza City were flattened, as eyewitnesses described entire families buried under rubble. Aid convoys waiting at Rafah were delayed yet again, leaving tens of thousands of displaced families without food or shelter. Even temporary medical camps reported running out of anesthesia and blood supplies as wounded civilians poured in.

For many Gazans, this ceasefire was never about peace. It was a pause for breath, which means the one that Israel chose to weaponize. As one humanitarian worker told, “Every time they say peace, we prepare for more funerals.” The despair among civilians is palpable, as they question whether the world even listens anymore.

This renewed round of bombings underlines a haunting reality that every so-called truce has become another opportunity for Israel to reposition militarily while Gaza’s people pay with their lives.

Truce Without Trust: The Myth of Protection

The fragility of the ceasefire exposes an uncomfortable truth that there is no enforcement mechanism strong enough to hold Israel accountable. Western governments condemned the bombing with soft statements but continued supplying military aid. The United States, which once called for restraint, quietly approved another arms shipment days before the strikes resumed.

This moral contradiction fuels Gaza’s anguish. Washington preaches human rights yet funds the very machinery that violates them. The European Union speaks of international law but rarely acts when those laws are broken. For ordinary Palestinians, the message is clear that their lives are negotiable, their suffering expendable in geopolitical bargains.

Human rights analysts argue that without credible monitoring, ceasefires will remain political performances rather than pathways to peace. As one UN official said, “If a truce allows bombing to continue, it is not a truce but just a theater.”

The Humanitarian Fallout: Life Amid Rubble

The humanitarian picture is grim. The United Nations estimates over 1.7 million Gazans are internally displaced, living in makeshift tents, classrooms, or under broken walls. Clean water remains scarce, fuel is nearly exhausted, and disease spreads faster than aid. Children draw pictures of bombs instead of butterflies while mothers ration bread to feed hungry infants.

Entire neighborhoods lie in ruins while their residents wait for food deliveries that rarely arrive. The World Food Programme reports that over 90% of Gaza’s population faces acute food insecurity. Hospitals are short on insulin, cancer medicine, and even basic painkillers. In some areas, people boil seawater to drink. Aid agencies have warned that if the siege continues, famine could arrive before winter.

Yet trucks full of aid remain parked just across the border, which is a cruel reminder of political paralysis and global indifference.

Legal and Moral Accountability

Under international law, targeting civilians during a ceasefire violates the Geneva Conventions. Still, Israel acts with impunity, shielded by its Western allies. Human rights groups have repeatedly called for independent investigations, but efforts stall at the UN due to American vetoes. The International Criminal Court’s pending case on alleged war crimes in Gaza remains stalled by diplomatic pressure.

For the people of Gaza, these violations are not abstract. They are lived experiences with the sound of collapsing roofs, the dust in the lungs, the endless funerals of neighbors and friends. Each airstrike deepens a collective trauma that future generations will inherit.

International experts now warn that without accountability, the world risks normalizing war crimes. As Amnesty International stated, “A ceasefire without justice is a countdown to the next tragedy.”

What Lies Ahead

As diplomats gather to discuss the next phase of Gaza’s future, the ground reality remains unchanged. The truce is more fragile than ever, and the people it was meant to protect are once again paying the price. Unless the international community enforces accountability and demands a genuine end to hostilities, this cycle will repeat.

A ceasefire should mean safety, not survival between strikes. For Gaza’s people, peace cannot come from pauses in bombing, but it must come from the world’s moral awakening to their right to live, rebuild, and breathe free. The global community must decide whether it stands for human life or for silence in the face of genocide.

Continue Reading

Featured

Annexing the West Bank While Gaza Bleeds

Published

on

Annexing-the-West-Bank-While-Gaza-Bleeds

Gaza’s skyline has vanished under intense smoke, while its streets, once filled with life, now echo with silence and grief. Amid this devastation, Israel has chosen to open another front, and this time not with missiles, but with geography. The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, has recently advanced two bills that aim to formally annex large parts of the occupied West Bank. It is an act of political conquest, while on the other hand, Gaza’s children are buried under rubble.

This is not a coincidence but a continuity. As Gaza suffers from genocide, Israel is redrawing borders to make that erasure permanent.

A Legislative Land Grab

Recently, Israel’s parliament approved the first readings of two annexation bills. The first extends Israeli civil law to all West Bank settlements, which is a territory occupied since 1967 and recognized internationally as Palestinian land. When it comes to the second bill, it targets Ma’ale Adumim, a massive settlement east of Jerusalem that splits the West Bank in half, severing its north from its south.

Although the votes were close, with one passing 25–24 and the other 31–9, their meaning was profound. As per the reports, both bills were introduced while U.S. Vice President JD Vance was visiting Israel, symbolizing open defiance of Washington’s diplomacy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hesitated to endorse them publicly, but pressure from his far-right allies, led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, is relentless. Their ideology is clear: no Palestine, no partition, and hence no peace.

Gaza’s Agony: A Genocide in Real Time

While politicians in Jerusalem debate annexation, Gaza’s population fights to survive. The UN Commission of Inquiry has declared Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide, which is a deliberate, systematic, and aimed effort at destroying a people. Till now, more than 67,000 Palestinians have died. Thousands have been displaced, and entire neighborhoods lie flattened. Hospitals function without power while aid convoys are bombed before reaching the hungry.

The International Court of Justice ordered Israel in January 2024 to prevent acts of genocide and ensure humanitarian access. None of those orders was respected. Moreover, the siege tightened, and starvation was made a weapon. Against this backdrop, annexation of the West Bank reads not as policy, but as a strategy that seems to be the second half of a single campaign to erase Palestine from existence.

Illegality Beyond Dispute

When International Law is brought into the limelight, Israel’s annexation efforts are null and void. Even the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion confirmed that Israel’s occupation and settlement expansion violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. The United Nations has repeatedly reaffirmed that any attempt to acquire land by force is illegal. States are required not to recognize or assist such measures.

Yet, Israel continues to act with impunity. Roads, checkpoints, and segregated zones have already turned the West Bank into an archipelago of isolated enclaves. The annexation of Ma’ale Adumim would cement that reality, rendering a future Palestinian state geographically impossible. As it was observed,

“Israel no longer hides its intent, and the map of occupation is clearly being turned into a map of sovereignty.”

Washington’s response has been familiar: sharp words, soft hands. Vice President Vance called the Knesset vote an “insult,” with a warning that it endangered the fragile Gaza ceasefire framework. Yet, U.S. military aid, which is nearly $3.8 billion annually, continues without condition. American arms still supply Israeli jets, and U.S. vetoes still block UN resolutions calling for accountability.

This pattern of contradiction has defined U.S.-Israel relations for decades, including public condemnation and private protection. Israel acts knowing that Washington’s rebukes will never reach the language of sanctions. It is diplomacy without deterrence, and therefore, carte blanche.

The Ceasefire Framework

As Gaza starves, diplomats continue to negotiate the truce. According to reports, the ceasefire plan includes a phased release of Israeli hostages, the freeing of about 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, and gradual Israeli troop withdrawals from urban centers. However, each new bulldozer digging into West Bank soil makes these efforts meaningless.

How can peace talks survive when one side expands the very occupation at their root? How can trust grow when homes are demolished under the shadow of negotiation tents? Consequently, the annexation vote mocks every word written in ceasefire communiqués.

What Lies Ahead

Inside Israel, Netanyahu faces a dangerous balancing act. His far-right allies threaten to topple his coalition if he slows annexation. Western allies warn of isolation if he proceeds. The prime minister’s hesitation is tactical, not moral. Whether annexation happens now or later, the machinery of occupation keeps grinding forward.

Internationally, legal pressure is rising but somehow easing, especially after the announcement of the so-called “truce”. The UN Human Rights Council urges accountability, while the European governments debate sanctions against settlers and arms-export suspensions. However, power still shields Israel from the consequences of law. The ICJ’s rulings carry moral weight, yet enforcement remains elusive. Until action matches outrage, international law will remain a promise unfulfilled.

Annexation during genocide is the moment when the world’s excuses run out. Law, morality, and history converge here. If the international community turns away again, the phrase “never again” will lose its meaning forever. And in the dust of Gaza and the stones of the West Bank, humanity itself will stand accused.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending