What Marvin Rees said about Colston in February

He’s [Colston] a peddler in slavery, misery, murder, and rape.”

Back on February 17, Marvin Rees came to UWE and answered questions on a range of topics. Here’s what he said on Colston, and the Colston name, at the time.

Question: Do you think it’s important to get rid of the ‘Colston’ names and some of the other slave traders’ names in Bristol?

M: So, I’ll give you a frank personal thing on that; when I first came in, myself and a number of a number of black people in the creative sector said that the best thing to do is to keep that debate away from me; I’m the first mayor of African heritage in Europe, and then someone came and asked me in cabinet, actually a black person asked me in cabinet, and I reprimanded them them for it because I said: “you know this is loaded”, right? I don’t have the freedom to talk about these issues in the way that some of the other people do. 

That’s the hard reality of it, right. You know, “Marvin Rees gets elected, black mayor wants to get rid of Bristol’s history”, right? We just talked about racism [earlier in the discussion]. Now that gun’s loaded, right? It’s already pointed at my head. I could be the one to give people the knock to pull the trigger and then I suddenly start getting compartmentalized into a mayor that is just tied up in race, can’t get over it, can’t rise above it, and keeps indulging it. And then I get trapped in the kind of narrative that a black mayor talks about black issues and doesn’t talk about the economy. 

But having said that, I think – you know, I’m not 100% sure. What I think the real problem is is the way it’s remembered, right. So, if you go to the plaque on the Colston statue it says that he’s a “wise and virtuous son of the city”, right? No he’s not, right. He’s a peddler in slavery, misery, murder, and rape, right. Now you may say that he took some of that money and he gave it to certain good causes; and Madge Dresser, who’s a UWE professor, will say: he didn’t give money to everyone, he gave money to what he considered to be deserving. 

But let’s be honest about it, let’s be truthful about it, and then you as a city make a decision: do you want a statue up, you know, representing that person – I prefer to go down that line.

But even with the Colston Hall, with a change in the name, one of the things I suggested was you should have a plaque that says this is, you know, call it whatever it’s going to be called but have a plaque that says: “this is the day the name was changed”, because that prompts the story: “why did you change the name?” right. Because we, as a city, once had streets and halls that were named after him, this slaver. He wasn’t the only one, but one of many, and we, as a city, decided we were no longer going to do that; that’s the fullness of the story – talks about what we were, and talks about the debate that happened at the time, and talks about what you want it to be. But you never, you’re not airbrushing out, which is what some people then charge this element of history with. We shouldn’t – we’re not trying to sterilize history.

Question: What about Colston Tower – how do we get rid of that name?

M: Again, I’d be worried about kind of leading the charge myself because, you know – is it the most important thing for me? You know, I’m more, you know; of all the things I can spend my time on, changing the name of Colston Tower – symbolic; that ain’t gonna do anything about keeping a disproportionate number of young black men out of the criminal justice system or off community treatment orders or mental health, it ain’t gonna improve their educational trajectories, you know, and I think sometimes; so I think it has its place. If you come and say, “I’m gonna carve out a bit of time”. If you was to say to me “do you know, Marv, I wanna go for that” I’d say “go for it, fantastic”, but I’m not gonna spend my time on it, you know, when I’m trying to house people at the moment – what I spend my energy on. But I do think – I have explored the view. 

I think it would be fascinating for the city have a grown up discussion about that, and I would welcome a day in which Bristol said: “you know what, we don’t want to call that Colston Tower anymore, that’s not where we’re at, it’s not who we are, and we’re going to remember this day as the day we changed their name – and, in fact, the day the name was changed becomes an anniversary in Bristol’s calendar. I think that’d be incredible.

Featured photo taken by Joe Newman – thanks Joe!

What Marvin Rees said about Bristol Energy in February

Do you collapse the company and crystalize losses at the start, and just say: right we’re sinking all that, we’re sinking now, or do you look for an avenue of making the company work?

When Marvin Rees came to UWE on February 17, he spoke on a range of topics. Here’s what he said in response to a question about Bristol Energy:

We- it’s a risk with Bristol Energy. It’s a company we’ve inherited, but you face a decision: do you do you collapse the company and crystalize losses at the start, and just say: right we’re sinking all that, we’re sinking now, or do you look for an avenue of making the company work? 

We’ve looked for an avenue to make the company work and as there’s two ways in which Bristol Energy is- y’know we hope to reposition Bristol Energy. One is that when we went out to the world market to bring in £1 billion of investment for city leap, the fact that we owned an energy company was a huge, was a huge, factor in our attractiveness.

People take us seriously as a city about energy because we have an energy company; but, was it the right sector to go into as a local authority? Probably not, right? Energy’s ferociously risky. But you start from where you are, not from where you wish you were, alright and we came in, the energy company had already started, so we inherited – we’ve got to make decisions about it. 

The second thing is that if you get beyond just signing people up to your tariffs, there’s an opportunity to reposition Bristol Energy within the city leap. So those companies that are coming to invest not just money but expertise in renewables, heat distribution, and smart energy uses, battery storage, EV charging points in retrofitted homes. We’re able to reposition Bristol Energy within that package just more than just an energy supply company but as a services company that changes the nature of the company and gives us a new opportunity, gives it a new lease of life.

But as I said, was it the right sector to go into? No, but I wasn’t my decision and you pick up, you pick up the ball and you start from where you are. But there’s no clean decision, you know, if you wanted to make an argument to crystallize those losses you’d have to go out and say right we’re just going to crystallize 20 million quid of loss. That’s a big decision too. Everything’s a risk.

Opinion: Government’s coronavirus bill lowers standards and is ripe for abuse

In what’s been called “a drastic reimagining of state powers” by Martha Spurrier, Director of Liberty (a human rights charity), the Government’s planned coronavirus bill is too broad and is ripe for abuse.

In Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones, broad emergency powers are granted by the legislature – eventually leading to the formation of the Galactic Empire. Whilst Boris Johnson is unlikely to take the title of Emperor, it’s worth remembering that granting broad emergency powers should not be taken lightly.

Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) did not use his ‘emergency powers’ for good. Credit: IMDb / Lucasfilm Ltd.

The planned legislation will be time-limited for two years. It should be shorter – the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which deals with emergencies such as war and terrorism, has emergency regulations expire after 30 days, unless renewed by Parliament; when the peak of the virus is expected to hit between late May and late June of this year, it is unclear why Government should not have to apply for an extension to these unprecedented powers, and why they would still need them as far away as 2022; Parliament can always renew powers if they are needed for longer.

According to the BBC, it is likely that there will not even be a vote on the powers, instead they will be nodded through by Parliament. This means the bill will not be properly scrutinised by our elected representatives.

Giving law enforcement powers to detain and isolate people in a pandemic may sound good in theory, but there need to be clearly defined safeguards against abuse. How these safeguards can be robust to protect our civil liberties is questionable considering the lack of proper scrutiny. Martha Spurrier is right in saying that we “must not allow the hollowing out of human rights to become the go-to for the Government when it’s in a crisis.”

According to The Times and the Government:

  • Only one doctor will be required to sign death certificates, and the need for inquests to be held with a jury will be removed.
  • Furthermore, only one doctor will be needed to detain people under mental health laws, rather than the two currently required.
  • Additionally, local councils will be able to lower care standards so they can “prioritise” between residents in need, “even if this means not meeting everyone’s assessed needs in full”.
  • Also, ministers will be able to reduce teacher ratios, slash school meal standards, and reduce standards for children with special needs.
  • In addition, the government will have the ability “to restrict or prohibit events and gatherings during the pandemic in any place, vehicle, train, vessel or aircraft, any movable structure and any offshore installation and, where necessary, to close premises”.

These changes set a dangerous precedent where oversight is thrown out of the window and standards are lowered with no proper scrutiny of the changes; lowering care standards carries the additional risk of putting vulnerable people in danger in a time where they may need additional attention.

In a crisis, it is more important than ever to make sure sweeping changes to our democracy and our society are not made under the guise of public safety.

In the words of Peter Hitchens, of the Mail on Sunday, “You should be seriously alarmed.”

Featured image: Marcin Nowak / Unsplash

Putting the ‘rogue’ in ‘prorogue’

Protesters standing by The Cenotaph in Bristol, protesting the prorogation of Parliament.
Protester holding a sign saying "Liar Johnson put the 'ROGUE' in 'PRO-ROGUE' #StopTheCoup" at a protest by The Cenotaph in Bristol City Centre
Protester holding a sign at “Stop the Coup” protest next to The Cenotaph, Bristol City Centre.
Photo: Jack Fifield.

The word ‘prorogue’ has been enjoying its time in the spotlight this week, and many, not least angry protesters, have expertly deduced that the word ‘prorogue’ looks like the words ‘pro rogue’. This begs the question: are these words actually related?

To start my investigation, I turned to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

As an historical dictionary, the OED doesn’t prioritize modern meanings over historical meanings; this can be seen by the fact that the modern UK sense isn’t stated until last in the OED’s entry “b. intransitive. Of a legislative assembly, etc.: to discontinue sittings for a period of time or until the next session.”

As many angry demonstrators holding signs such as “Boris Johnson is a pro rogue” or “Liar Johnson put the ‘ROGUE’ in ‘PRO-ROGUE’” (pictured) over the last few weeks have pointed out, at first glance, the word ‘prorogue’ looks and sounds like a combination of the prefix “pro-” (before something) and the adjective ‘rogue’ (unpredictable, dishonest, etc.).

The “pro” in “prorogue” is not a shortening of “professional”, with the OED confirming that, much more simply, in this case, it is the prefix discussed above, in the sense of “Forward, onward, in a course or in time”; this leads us to “rogue”, surely this is just the word “rogue”?

Going back to Latin via the route of Anglo-Norman and Middle French, we get to rogāre, to ask, according the OED, and we are directed to “see rogation n.”, with multiple senses including the acts of begging and of making a formal request.

Turning to the origin of the word ‘rogue’, the OED tells us that the earliest recorded sense is “An idle vagrant, a vagabond; one of a group or class of such people. Now archaic or historical.”, but admits that the origin is unknown, suggesting that it may be related to “roger n.”, an obsolete word for a beggar pretending to be from Oxford or Cambridge, with the OED telling us that some have suggested that this was actually pronounced like the word “rogue” instead of the name “roger”, but that there is no supporting evidence for any of this, or that the words are even related, and that “an etymological connection with the family of classical Latin rogāre (see rogation n.) is unlikely.”, bringing us full circle.

So, it would seem that, whilst the OED is of the opinion that a connection between ‘prorogue’ and ‘rogue’ is unlikely, there are some similar senses for both words relating to the acts of begging or asking, meaning that there could be some connection along the line. For now, this case remains unsolved.

No-platforming speakers is as misguided and divisive as UKIP itself

16:02. A Facebook message asking me to “guarantee to not leak details” and telling me that I will be taken “to the location”. No, this isn’t an episode of 24, this is what happens when a student-organized husting is cancelled at the last minute by administrators at UWE.

Derya Khalilpour, president of the UWE Debating Society, pulls up in his car at the agreed meeting spot just outside of Frenchay Campus, and signals to me to get in. As we start to drive, I meet treasurer of the society, James Pearson, who chuckles when I ask to where we are driving — I still don’t know where we are going. I’m told we’re going to a hotel in the centre, but I’ll have to wait until later until I find out the exact location.

If you think that this sounds clandestine in nature, you’d be right; as I would later find out, I would make up just a sixth of those in attendance, including Carl Benjamin as the sole speaker, and his assistant.

As we drive to the centre, I ask Khalilpour about how it got to this point. He tells me that the proper procedures were followed for inviting external speakers to the university campus, with plans submitted to the Students’ Union prior to the deadline of fourteen days in advance, and everything was approved up until three days before the event. As the university did not have the contact details of the society, Khalilpour was informed of the cancellation around the same time as the public statement went live.

The logo

Having predicted something like this would happen, Khalilpour knew now was the time to go rogue. As we’re driving in the car, Pearson is frantically editing a logo for the new page he is setting up to stream the event, it’s the UWE Debating Society’s logo, but with the colours inverted and the word “NOT” superimposed: the disgruntlement towards the university is palpable.

Khalilpour tells me that the UWE Debating Society is an “incredibly diverse society, politically”, and that many don’t know what people’s politics are.

I ask Khalilpour what he thinks of Green party candidate Carla Denyer’s call to boycott the original hustings: “[she] should respect us as a debating society to uphold platforming. If she believes the propagation of the views that [Benjamin] holds would be detrimental to society then she, by dropping out, has given him a larger platform — now we are also exclusively platforming Carl [Benjamin].”

The event

After some trouble navigating Bristol’s new Temple Gate and the associated roadworks, we arrive at the Mercure Bristol Grand Hotel. Eight chairs have been laid out for the event, enough for seven speakers and the chair, but everyone knows only Benjamin will be in attendance.

Benjamin arrives at 18:42 with his assistant in tow. They set up their own camera separate to that of the “Not UWE Debating Society” to film the event.

Benjamin introduces himself, stating that UKIP are “the only Brexit party that are an actual party”, and that the manifesto “hit[s] all the major notes, subjects that my activism does revolve around”, he explains his disagreement with the manifesto’s pledge to reinvigorate the coal industry, proposing increased use of nuclear power, and concludes his introduction with a speech concerning Article 13 and internet liberties, probably the only two points that even I can agree with.

Views on Islam

What came next was much more sinister.

Benjamin said he thinks that there is too much “pussy-footing around” in European Parliament, and that an MEP should use the “minute or so on the floor to raise issues that are not being talked about in the direct way that need to be spoken about”.

Benjamin then launched in to a seven-and-a-half minute tirade on his views of Islam, including the supposed high prevalence of “abaya”, a traditionally Muslim dress, commenting that he thinks it’s “the wrong message to send that this is the kind of Islam we want in Britain”. When asked how to stem the proliferation of Islamic terrorism, he stated that the “British state is going to have to choose a form of Islam that it finds socially compatible with the country”, with certain types “prohibited from being taught in mosques”. When questioned as to how this was compatible with Benjamin’s own descriptions of himself as a “free speech activist” and “civil libertarian”, he was quick to deflect, saying that he would still wish to allow this in private reading, just not in mosques.

Benjamin then praised the oppressive state of Saudi Arabia, where women only recently gained the ability to legally drive, saying that “in every mosque in Saudi Arabia, they have cameras to monitor the Imams themselves to make sure they’re not teaching anything that would be considered revolutionary, if it’s good enough for Saudi Arabia then […] I think that could only benefit everyone”. Despite attempts by Khalilpour to steer the discussion back on track, Benjamin was quick to return to discussion on Islam, referring to the “indigenous population” of the UK at one point in his answer.

At one point, Benjamin stated that the Liberal Democrats had been subverted by socialists and associated the party’s notion of equality to communism; despite this, I asked him afterwards, were he a Remainer, which party he would be a member of, he said the Liberal Democrats, presumably due to his perception of himself as a liberal.

Benjamin continued the interview criticizing censorship online, saying “I think censorship radicalizes people” seemingly unable to see the irony between his criticism of the erasure of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and his calls to ban certain types of religious teaching and dress.

After calling LGBT rights a “political issue”, Benjamin was asked if there was anything that social justice movements had achieved that he agreed with, to which he responded “what have they achieved? Well, they’ve achieved a great deal of censorship”. Benjamin is clearly unable to identify with the plight of anyone beyond himself: due to the suspension of his Twitter account, he believes that he is subject to censorship. If Benjamin had been able to come up with an answer, he may have mentioned same-sex marriage, legalized in 2014, surely a milestone contribution to Benjamin’s earlier assertion that there is “no difference between the rights of a gay man and a straight man in this country”.

Asked whether “students engaging politically is a positive thing”, Benjamin said he thought “students should get on with their studies”, after an incredulous look by Khalilpour, Benjamin redoubled saying “I’m serious, you don’t need to be involved in politics, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re like twenty-one years old, I’m thirty-nine and I still don’t know what I’m talking about.” “You’ve been fed half a narrative from your Marxist professor and you’ve been given a bunch of false information that’s led you to believe everything you disagree with is fascism, and you just don’t know, just get on with your studies”.

Well, at least Benjamin got one thing right: he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Of course, when turn out is lower, right-leaning parties succeed at a higher rate, so as young people are one of the groups that turns out to vote in the lowest numbers, of course he would be appear more than happy to see them disenfranchised.

I queried Benjamin on his views about the recent story where a man covered his face and received a £90 fine, and whether he thought that the man had a right to cover his face. His response: “of course he did”, when I asked why he would restrict the rights of a Muslim woman to cover her face with a burqa, and its impact on civil liberties he seemed unfazed, saying that it was not a contradiction, and that we already restrict what people can wear in certain places, and that “we do have to compromise in certain regards”, saying that a ban “doesn’t have to be restricted to any one religion”, and that it could be restricted to certain places.

The “Not UWE Debating Society”, as an independent group of students, could not use society funds could for any of the re-organized event, so it looked like they would be out-of-pocket. After the event was over, with questioning complete, Benjamin became aware of this, and offered to cover the cost of the hotel room booking. From my point of view this seemed to be an offer to a group of students out of kindness, rather than a conflict of interest; this would not have been necessary had the original husting gone ahead as planned.

My final thoughts

Benjamin seemed more concerned with opinions relating to Islam and censorship online than on his party’s Brexit strategy, but this is to be expected considering that a recent YouGov/The Times poll puts UKIP at 3%, below even that of Change UK (5%). Clearly Brexit is not helping them remain relevant, so why not try something else? His assertions that students should not be involved in politics, that LGBT rights are a political issue, and his inability to find a single good achievement of the social justice movement show that Benjamin is either unable or unwilling to see outside of his bubble, despite criticizing others for the same. There are many legitimate reasons for leaving the European Union, even if I may disagree with it, but it received little attention from Benjamin in the entire hour he was given to talk with no opposing candidates.

Had the original husting gone ahead, Benjamin would have had to contend with the opposing candidates, but due to the withdrawal of support by UWE, he had nothing but a chairman and a woefully inexperienced student journalist in myself to contend with. This constitutes a failure by the university.

Luckily, if the polling is correct, Benjamin’s views, like UKIP, will one day be dead in the water.

It is here that I’d like to urge people to vote in the upcoming European Parliament elections in order to help keep people like Benjamin from gaining office. With a more proportional voting system than General Elections, your vote really does make a difference, and tactical voting is not as necessary.

The Green Party’s Carla Denyer refused request for comment.

Porn age verification: An interview with Myles Jackman, obscenity lawyer

This article was updated at 14:11 on the 15th March 2019. MindGeek do not own 90% of ‘tube’ websites, as a previous version of this article quoted, however do have multiple high profile sites in their portfolio, including RedTube, Pornhub, YouPorn, and Brazzers. I apologize for this error.

Image of Myles Jackman by
Paul Clarke [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

With the planned introduction of compulsory age verification for viewing pornography in the United Kingdom, which will require adults to provide sensitive documentation such as passports, credit cards, and driving licenses in order to view perfectly legal pornography, I interview Myles Jackman, an obscenity lawyer and former UWE student, known for his successful defence in the landmark R v Peacock case, he was also the first acting solicitor allowed to live-tweet from a trial, and was awarded the Law Society’s Junior Lawyer of the Year Excellence Award in 2012 for his work. In the interview, I ask Mr. Jackman for his opinions on the effectiveness of the upcoming age verification methods; their potential impacts on LGBT rights, civil liberties, freedom of expression; how Brexit might have an effect; and how UWE students can seek to replicate his success.


Jackman: Theoretically, age verification is going to be applied for adult content consumed in the UK from the 1st of April. In reality, what we’re hearing from the frontline is there may be a few weeks’ delay on that. But, it’s already been delayed for over a year, because we have repeatedly raised privacy and security concerns about the system. In other words, there is significant risk that everyone’s private sexual details could be leaked, hacked, or otherwise breached and put in the public domain. MindGeek have estimated that 25 million adults will sign up from the UK to age verification in the first month alone, so we’re talking about essentially half of the adult population.

What would you say to those who are worried about their children potentially accessing pornography, do you think this verification will help?

Jackman: No, they’re really pretty useless, because they can be gotten around with Tor, proxies, VPNs, etc. very easily. They’re not difficult to circumvent for people who are tech-literate. So, as usual this is a measure intended to improve things, which will only target people for whom it wasn’t a problem in the first place, effectively.

There’s also the next issue: should we be deferring having conversations with our children from our own parental responsibility to that of the state. In other words, this is just seen as an easy victory for government and some kind of magic bullet for parents, but it’s not. Even its proponents say it won’t be more than seventy per cent effective — and that’s the absolute highest amount they expect to be caught by age verification.

Do you think that the introduction of porn filters could lead to clandestine websites appearing that may have access to more extreme, and potentially illegal, material?

Jackman: Yeah, that’s a serious risk. There’s a risk of cyberfraud – people who don’t know which sites they’re going to being asked to give their details, there’ll be cyber blackmail: “oh no, you’ve just put your details in to our weird sex website, give us £500 or we’ll release your details to the public”. That sort of thing. So, there’s going to be an arch swing in that kind of behaviour.

How can we, as individuals, resist these intrusions on our civil liberties?

Jackman: The easiest thing to do is not to comply by using proxies, Tor, and VPNs, and then to protest against the unnecessary introduction of this system.

Do you think that these pornography filters are incompatible with freedom of expression?

Jackman: They are going to have a significant impact on the free speech ecosystem. For those smaller providers who can’t afford age verification, or who think that it’s too much of a practical hassle for them to have to maintain, say a very small text-based erotica website, we therefore will see a massive reduction in the number of active websites on the internet relating to adult sexuality. And unfortunately, alternative sexual communities, such as LGBTQ, BDSM, sex workers, etc. are likely to be hit the most, and disproportionately.

What impact, if any, do you think the upcoming pornography filters will have on LGBT rights and wellbeing?

Jackman: When the actual filter was first introduced, it filtered out loads of LGBTQ advice sites, so for younger adults who want information about safer sexual practices, these were just hidden, and that was a massive mistake. It’s a perfect example of where the protect the children logic goes wrong.

What impact do you think that Brexit will have on the rights and civil liberties of UK citizens?

Jackman: Have you got any easy question?! Just kidding. Brexit itself is pretty difficult to call anyway, let alone trying to establish the outcome on civil liberties. Let’s assume that Brexit occurs, it’s really difficult to tell what the impact will be on the adult industry. For example, because GDP is likely to be hit by 9%, will there be less payment for pornography as people are literally tightening their purse strings. Or, will people be in desperate need of recreation, and therefore consumption won’t be hit. There is an issue for production, if money isn’t put in to the system to pay for the porn, then no-one will be manufacturing apart from the very big corporate sites. That has an impact on free speech, because for those people who wish to consume that material, they may be denied their right to receive it because it’s not being manufactured.

What impact do you think there will be on human rights in general, considering that the Conservatives wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act, which we can’t do until we’re out of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)?

Jackman: With adequacy agreements in place for GDPR, that might be sufficient [on privacy and security issues]. But there are so many human rights issues, both digital and real-world that are so difficult to ascertain. I would imagine that privacy and security of data are significantly at risk in event of a no-deal Brexit.

Do you think that the UK is seeing a regression in the breadth of rights and liberties afforded to its citizens?

Jackman: Yes.

What is your opinion on the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), do you think that it should instead be optional to be rated, rather than compulsory, similar to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in the United States?

Jackman: It’s somewhat confusing that what is ultimately formed as a trade body should become the prima facie censor for the internet. The same problem [that arthouse film producers face] exists for porn, for indie producers it’s very expensive to get rated. The BBFC saying ‘oh no, just send us your porn and we’ll tell you if it’s legal or not’, and that may have a cost implication for producers that is unrealistic. We’re still not really in receipt of realistic guidance on the type of material that the BBFC will consider legitimate, although we do have a change in the Obscene Publications Act guidelines under the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] as to what kind of material may now be legal.

What advice do you have for UWE students who want to replicate your success?

Jackman: Identify an area of law that you’re passionate about, create a brand and say something interesting, and believe in yourself.

[End of interview.]

This interview was transcribed from a recording of an interview conducted over the phone. Whilst all efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, there may be some errors in transcription, for which I apologize.


Politicians need to stop blowing smoke and legalize cannabis

With the recent legalization of cannabis in Canada, it’s time for politicians in the UK to wake up and smell the kush.

Countries and areas that have legalized cannabis have already seen plenty of success. Since legalization in 2014, cannabis sales in Colorado have brought in over US$900-million in tax revenue [1], even though Colorado’s sales tax rate is a meagre 2.9% — tiny compared to the UK’s standard VAT rate of 20%. Scaled up to the larger population of the UK, and with the generally-higher tax rates found in our country, cannabis would provide an extremely large amount of untapped tax revenue that is currently wasted on the black market.

Currently, cannabis is often easier for young people to obtain than alcohol. As drug dealers do not discriminate on the basis of age, there is no protection against the use of cannabis by younger people whose bodies are still developing, meaning the criminalization of cannabis is making it even easier to obtain for those who are most at risk from its use.

With the current situation of illicit cannabis consumption, adult consumers are also exposed to unnecessary health risks.

Firstly, there is a chance that the cannabis has been in some way tainted from the pure product that would be guaranteed if sold under regulated conditions. Whilst it is unlikely that cannabis is intentionally laced, the possibility for unintentional lacing with the use of improper pesticides is all too real.

Furthermore, with the introduction of legal cannabis comes the advantage of the free market, and the innovation that entails. No longer will consumers feel limited to purely smoking cannabis; cannabis-infused food such as brownies or even gummy bears will become commonplace, reducing the risk to health that smoking entails, such as lung cancer and heart problems. This has already been seen in legal markets.

Legalization of cannabis would only make it safer than it currently is, an impressive feat considering that even now cannabis is safer than alcohol; in 2012, 5.9% of global deaths were attributed to alcohol [2], compared to zero deaths ever caused by overdosing on cannabis [3]; according to David Schmader’s Weed: The User’s Guide, it “would require ingestion of fifteen hundred pounds in fifteen minutes — a physical impossibility for any human, even Snoop Dogg” to overdose on cannabis [3].

Cannabis’ legal status makes it the perfect gateway drug

Cannabis is sometimes called a “gateway drug” – proponents of this term say that cannabis opens the floodgates for users to try harder, more dangerous drugs. Looking at the statistics, it is true that most people who have tried illegal drugs have tried cannabis first.

However, this is manufactured by the status of cannabis being illegal. As drug dealers tend to diversify their operations to make more money, they offer harder drugs to their customers, providing a connection and opening the door to someone who was exclusively a cannabis user to start using harder drugs. Of course, with the safety record cannabis has relative to alcohol and some other drugs, it is no wonder that many may then question their views on the danger of other illegal drugs, even though they can be much less safe. If cannabis were legalized, this link between buyer and seller would be non-existent.

Personal liberty

With little evidence that there is good reason to ban cannabis, it is a deprivation of liberty to arbitrarily restrict what people can or cannot choose to do in their free time. Just as most people would agree that people should be allowed to enjoy a beer on the weekend free of restriction, so too should an adult be allowed to consume cannabis if they so choose.

Keeping it in the family

In 2016, the United Kingdom was the world’s largest producer of legal cannabis, [4, p. 43] but cannabis remains illegal for legal consumption in the United Kingdom. It is of note that Paul Kenward, husband of drugs minister Victoria Atkins, operates Britain’s largest legal cannabis farm [5]. Victoria Atkins has previously declared her opposition to the legalization of cannabis, despite her family directly profiting from its production in the currently tightly regulated market.


The United Kingdom has a tendency with this sort of thing to wait for others to take the lead before dipping its toes in. Others, such as Canada and many US states, have led; the positive evidence is there; the time for politicians to act is now.


[1] Colorado Government, “Marijuana Tax Data,” [Online]. Available: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-tax-data.
[2] World Health Organization, “Alcohol,” [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/alcohol/en/.
[3] M. Robinson, “The Independent,” 8 November 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/how-much-marijuana-take-to-kill-you-fatal-weed-a8043856.html. [Accessed 26 February 2019].
[4] United Nations, “Narcotic Drugs — Estimated world requirements for 2018 — Statistics for 2016,” 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.incb.org/documents/Narcotic-Drugs/Technical-Publications/2017/Narcotic_drugs_technical_publication_2017.pdf. [Accessed 26 February 2019].
[5] A. Gilligan, “Drug minister Victoria Atkins’s husband oversees cannabis farm,” 13 May 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/drug-minister-victoria-atkinss-husband-oversees-cannabis-farm-hv5q25pqr. [Accessed 26 February 2019].

Exiling Shamima Begum undermines the British judicial system

Image by Charles D P Miller from Basingstoke, United Kingdom [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)]

Home Secretary Sajid Javid recently said in an interview with The Times, “If you have supported terrorist organisations abroad I will not hesitate to prevent your return.” This approach is counterproductive and dangerous to the UK’s fight against radicalization and terrorism.

If we do not allow those, such as Shamima Begum, who have left their life in the UK to commit terroristic acts to return to face the full consequences of their actions, we are effectively deciding to pawn off our radicalized citizens to other countries that are ill-equipped to cope with those that have been radicalized, meaning that dangerous terrorists are left to roam the streets to commit further atrocities. In doing so, we are losing any opportunity we may have to deradicalize these people; this undermines our legal system.

With the news that Shamima Begum has given birth, revoking her British citizenship would have the knock-on effect of exposing her child to radicalisation, and the potential for physical and mental harm.

Revoking the citizenship of those who commit heinous acts desolidifies the concept of British citizenship. By not guaranteeing the future citizenship of those who have legally obtained it, we are saying that British citizenship is a fluid concept, with the potential for any British citizen to be subject to exile. This sets a dangerous precedent, that could, in the future, be used by any government-of-the-day to kick out those with whom it does not agree.

Doing so also fails to take in to account any responsibility of the United Kingdom for the prevention of radicalization of its citizens. Shamima Begum was radicalized on UK soil, in a UK school. To revoke her citizenship would be to absolve UK authorities of their responsibility to prevent the radicalization of its citizens, as they can simply revoke their citizenship status in the future, dumping the problem somewhere else.

Another option available to the government is to issue a Temporary Exclusion Order to Begum, preventing her return dependent on conditions imposed. By erecting obstacles to Begum’s return, the UK government runs the risk of exposing her, her child, and innocent people who come in to contact with Begum to further radicalization, and potential harm. Instead, Ms. Begum’s return should be encouraged, so that she can face the full consequences of her actions in accordance with UK law, and to guarantee the safety and wellbeing of her child.

From certain reports, Ms. Begum seems unrepentant for her actions. Whilst many may point to this as a reason to keep her out of the UK, I believe that this simply solidifies how important it is for her to return. By keeping someone with this mindset free in other countries, we are risking more lives and imposing danger on others, creating opportunities for Daesh to have a resurgence in popularity from those displaced.

Now or never: The use of torture must be stopped

As liberal democracies, there are many values that countries such as the UK and the USA are expected to uphold. What we consider to be basic rights and freedoms, such as the rule of law, civil rights, and political freedoms, are merely fantasy for many across the globe.

However, in recent history, we have seen that even so-called liberal democracies, such as as the United States, can toss the very same rights they claim to uphold out of the window using loopholes and by abusing their position as world superpowers. This can be seen within the last decade at Guantanamo Bay, where President Bush vetoed legislation banning the CIA from using torture, allowing them to carry out practises such as waterboarding unimpeded.

Torture is often portrayed as something that is necessary for the survival of the nation, or even democracy itself, in some popular media. Whilst watching 24, an action show from Fox, I was surprised to see how often torture was positively portrayed. Often, there would be a time-limited situation where evidence obtained by using ‘enhanced interrogation’, a euphemism for torture favoured even by President Bush’s administration, would be used to save the day from yet another terrorist.

But is there any truth in the effectiveness of torture?

The answer may surprise you.

According to respected academics in the field, such as Shane O’Mara, intelligence gained from torture is so unreliable that it’s often useless. People will often say whatever they think will make the torture stop.

So why is it portrayed as effective in some media? Could it be that the people behind shows such as 24 have a political agenda that they want us to subscribe to? I think it’s possible. It is important to remember that whilst our ‘all-American’ heroes such as 24’s Jack Bauer aren’t real, there are very real people, at multiple levels, making decisions behind the fictional actions he takes. This would appear to make sense, considering the airing of the original season of 24 coincided closely with the beginning of the War on Terror.

Could it be that these forms of entertainment are nothing more than jingoistic propaganda?

With recent news that torture is being carried out in ‘re-education camps’ in China’s Xinjiang province against Muslims, it’s more important than ever for countries to take a hard stance against its use.

With China fast becoming the next global superpower, there needs to be an effective and rigorous way to police the use of torture worldwide, with sanctions applied to those countries that support its use. As we have seen that even so-called liberal democracies will use torture, despite its unreliability and immorality, this needs to be an internationally co-ordinated effort.

If we don’t stamp out the use of this abhorrent practice now, we could see it on the rise sooner than you might think.