America’s Racial Divide, The Double Standards Of Shooters In The Media & White Privilege

I’ve had to take a brief hiatus from this blog due to job hunting opportunities and other commitments, but much like Arnie will be in August’s new Terminator film, I’m back.

Another day another shooting in the United States, this time a white twenty-one year old male killed nine African Americans in a historic Black Church, yet the media has been reluctant to call this crime what it is: Terrorism. It was designed to instill fear and insecurity within that community. It was an act predicated on an ingrained hatred and prejudice. It was a targeted attack on a select group of people. This wasn’t random. It wasn’t unpredictable. It was intentional.

Hypothetically speaking, imagine a Muslim walked into a church and shot dead nine Christians in South Carolina. There would be outrage. There would be talk of ISIS, Islamic extremism and demands for all Muslims to denounce this behaviour. If a Black man had walked into a white church and shot nine people, there would be talk of thugs, criminality and terror. But a white guy? Nope, that can never be terrorism. We whites seem exempt from that title. If ever there was evidence of the double standards in the media, both in the US and over here in the UK, it is now. Even the BBC opted for the phrase ‘mass shooter’ when reporting on the atrocity; would they have used this word if a different ethnicity or race had perpetrated this? I think not.

All too often these attacks are termed ‘lone wolf’ shootings, or linked to mental illness before any information about the culprit is released. This is exactly what activists mean by the term ‘white privilege.’ Whites are simply afforded the benefit of the doubt. They aren’t assumed to be linked to sinister and  evil organisations. They aren’t classified as terrorists or traitors immediately. It is just assumed that they are acting of their own accord.

The shadow of America’s racial record looms over the country, with large swathes of the States refusing to recognise the grievances of the African American community. In South Carolina the Confederate flag, a symbol of oppression and slavery, is still flown proudly. It is a State where roads are named after Confederate Generals, and White Power groups spout their hatred unopposed. Catastrophes like this rub salt into America’s racial wound. They make it worse, they sharpen the pain and make it clear that there is a divide. They prevent it from healing. The biased media coverage is like vinegar being rubbed into this gaping wound, adding insult to injury by denying that this was a hate crime; how could this event be seen as anything but an act of hate and vitriol?

I have hope for America. I think there is a way forward, but in order for things to improve there needs to be a period of reflection. People need to recognise the anger and views that are felt by opposing sides, and they need to find a way of dealing with these issues without making things worse. It will take time, but in this period of darkness it is imperative that everybody looks towards the light, and that they don’t fall into a dark abyss of loathing, anger and hatred. Darkness won’t cure this issue, only compassion can provide a cure.

Human Rights, Common Mistakes & Why We Need Them

“We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s anti-religious laws.” – Martin Luther King, Letter From Birmingham Jail. 

In recent days my Facebook newsfeed (if that’s what it’s called now) has been inundated with comments, petitions and opinions about the Tory plans to scrap the Human Rights Act. This is certainly a good thing; we should feel free to have an open and honest debate with one another about serious issues like this, and it is a joy to see this part of democracy flourish after the disappointingly undemocratic result of last weeks election. However, many of the comments have been rooted in misinformation, hyperbole or have been complete fiction, so here are a few bits of information you may find useful…

They Aren’t Related To The EU…At All

The European Convention on Human Rights, which the Human Rights Act is based upon, was signed in 1951 by multiple European countries. This was decades before the EU was formed, yet many people wrongly equate the European Court of Justice with the European Court of Human Rights. These two entities are separate. They aren’t linked, and the Human Rights Court is independent of the EU; if we left the EU today, to Nigel Farage’s glee, we would still be signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. Don’t confuse frustration with the EU and the Human Rights Act; they are not related.

Rights Are For Everyone…Not Just The Law Abiding

This is certainly an unpopular opinion to hold, but it is also one of the founding principles of Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights was drawn up after the horrific events of the Holocaust. Those writing the document had seen what happens if certain people are excluded from basic rights, and they sought never to see this injustice again. I’m not saying that as soon as the apparent shackles of Human Rights are broken that minorities will be herded up and deported, but it is a dangerous line to say that rights don’t apply to selected people.

The right wing press and the government love to drone on about how terrorists rely on the Human Rights Act, but the line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is blurred; Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were terrorists, but they were also freedom fighters. It’s an age old technique to deem those resisting the system a terrorist, allowing their rights to be curtailed. Look at the Suffragettes a century ago, or the latest Conservative attempt to curtail the ability of the opposition to speak. It is understandable that people are frustrated when dangerous people are allowed to stay in the country, but to say that criminals don’t have rights is a line that I will never cross. It takes very little to be regarded as a criminal, so we need to be careful before we throw their rights out of the window.

Foreign Oversight Isn’t A Terrible Thing 

Conservative MP Peter Bone was on TV yesterday bumbling his way through an interview in which he spoke about the European Court of Human Rights being a threat to our sovereignty, saying that the new British Bill of Rights would be a way of restoring the supremacy of the Supreme Court in the UK. On a nationalist and emotional level this argument has traction, but when you actually think about it, the argument loses its credibility fairly quickly. Domestic courts are swayed by public moods and opinions, and the UK judiciary can fairly easily be overruled by politicians. The European Court on the other hand is made up of judges from all over Europe, and is the final arbiter of cases. It has an English voice, but it also has an important sense of objectivity because it is somewhat distant.

The go to example of the European Court overruling our interests is how it blocked the UK’s attempts to deport Islamic hate preachers like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada in recent years. These men were vile and despicable, but there were credible threats to their ability to receive a fair trial, free of torture. Because the Human Rights Act prohibits torture, these men were able to stay in the UK until these threats could be neutralised. Yes, this was frustrating and expensive, but if we allow ourselves to sacrifice the rights of others for our own wellbeing, aren’t we losing the ability to call ourselves a liberal and democratic state?

Rights Are Absolute

This is imperative; Rights cannot traded, they don’t sway by public opinion and they cannot be discarded because they can be a little bit troublesome to those in power. They are innate to all humans, regardless of where you are born, your gender, your class, your religion or your sexual orientation. Each and every one of us is afforded the same rights, the same protection and the same power. Any attempt to alter this, and make one nationality superior to another, or give one group of people preferential treatment, should bring you great fear and discomfort.

Conclusion

The left aren’t trying to scaremonger or use the withdrawal of the Human Rights Act to justify their anger at what is widely perceived as an unfair election result. They are honestly concerned by the gravity of this situation. The media may be salivating at the prospect of these rights disappearing, and politicians may try to pander to the population with promises of security if this happens, but be under no illusion; the threat is real. A government that willfully removes rights is not respecting our democratic traditions, and needs to be reminded of what a liberal democracy stands for.

Want more information? Check out these sources for more information about Human Rights, and why you ought to be concerned. 

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/human-rights-act-myths

http://rightsinfo.org/infographics/the-14-worst-human-rights-myths/

Have a read of Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man, or Tocqueville’s Democracy in America; both provide an excellent commentary on why rights are so important, and why this should make you angry.

Rights, Liberty & Security: Why We Need The Human Rights Act

“Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another; and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess.”
― Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

Sadly the Tories have a majority. A slim one, but a majority nonetheless. We can’t do much about that, but we must not let our despair at the situation allow our resolve to falter. There are countless battles on the way, from the looming EU referendum, sweeping welfare cuts, and the threat to the NHS, those opposed to the ideological warfare wrought by the Tories certainly have their work set out for them.

First on the chopping block appears to be an effort to repeal the Human Rights Act of 1998. This has been a thorn in the side of the Tories for quite some time, with the Mail and the Express both salivating at the prospect of precious rights being removed by this new government. The Rights in the act are the ones expressed in the European Convention on Human Rights, and they protect all people from torture, slavery, the death penalty, as well as safeguarding free speech, a right to an education and many more precious rights. They were enshrined in the document in 1951 after the horrors of the Holocaust, in an attempt to protect the rights that had been severely neglected in the previous years. While some of the rights are protected by other laws, the important caveat of this act is that it applies to all British institutions; so the military, the NHS, local councils and other areas of the government must act to protect rights. The act applies to all people, regardless of their status, meaning that prisoners, asylum seekers and ordinary people are granted the same rights. This has led to some allegedly questionable court decisions, but it has also granted protection to so many. The Tories alleged replacement would not include the same level of protection, and many speculate that employment rights could be threatened too.

Freedom, liberty, justice and security are pretty sounding words, but they are without meaning if we do not act upon them. The ability for someone in power to discard a right that they find somewhat irksome is dangerous. It demotes that right to a privilege, and rights are inalienable. They are innate to us; they are a certain set of values and concepts that we as humans are all entitled to, regardless of age, colour, class or religion.

There is an awful lot of misinformation about the Human Rights Act; first off, it is not a smokescreen used to protect criminals, vagabonds and terrorists. The law prohibits deporting anyone to a country where they would be inflicted with torture or where they will be denied a fair trial. This is where the media has gotten so frustrated and sought to remove its constraints in recent years. Second off, the headline grabbing ‘case’ where an illegal immigrant was allowed to stay in the country because his cat counted as family was misconstrued by Theresa May. In reality the cat came into the equation as part of a wider context, with the judge making light of the cat in her final judgement (presumably Theresa May didn’t understand this misplaced attempt at humour.)

The media and the Conservatives would have us believe that the Human Rights Act is related to the EU, but in reality the principles it enshrines date back to 1951; decades before the EU. The European Convention on Human Rights has no link to the EU, other than the name ‘European’ being in its title. The European Court of Human Rights is the final arbiter in the protection of these rights. Citizens from any country which signed up to the document, which is pretty much anyone in Europe apart from Belarus, can go to the Court to get a judgement. It’s rulings can’t be overruled by national courts, and the decisions are binding. This appears to be the part that the political right cannot stand; the idea of foreign judges being able to dictate what happens in our country (have they not seen TTIP?). But having seen what can happen when Rights are eroded, and governments aren’t being checked, it makes sense for an outsider to keep a vigilant eye on the nation. Back in August the UN probed the UK because of concern over violations to the rights of the disabled. Given how gleefully Ian Duncan Smith has attacked the poor, the weak and the disabled over the past five years, it is hardly surprising that the Tories are keen to remove oversight which could draw attention to them.

As that opening quote says, we not only have these rights ourselves, but we need to protect the rights of others. In the early 1800s Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of his experiences in the new democratic experiment in the USA, and he expressed concern of a concept he called the ‘tyranny of the majority.’ He understood that at times the will of the majority of the people could infringe upon the rights of minorities. This is a situation we now find ourselves in. We have a duty to protect the rights of others, and the Human Rights Act is one of the principle ways in which we do this. Don’t let them scrap it. Get involved. Write to your MP, sign petitions, get out on the streets. This cannot be allowed to happen. Democracy isn’t something that happens when you cross a box one Thursday every five years. It happens when you get involved with the political system.

‘The Sun Wot Won It,’ Political Giants Fell & The Power Of Democracy

Last night was a shocker. In the run up to the election it seemed as though it would be a neck and neck race between Labour and the Conservative Party, but the Tories look like they may be able to hobble together a majority government (just about.) After five years of viscous austerity cuts it appears as though the public has voted for more of the same, and this time they may not be constrained by their Liberal Democrat allies.

The night had more twists and turns than a Stephen King novel, with high profile Liberal Democrats like Danny Alexander, Vince Cable, Charles Kennedy and Simon Hughes each losing their seat, and the party receiving what could be a single digit figure of MPs. Labour took a hell of a kicking in Scotland, with the SNP gaining virtually every seat it contested, while high ranking Labour figures like Douglas Alexander and Ed Balls were unseated. Last nights results were gripping, and they have proven that above all, democracy works. You can vote out those in power, and bring about meaningful change that YOU want to see.

Elsewhere Nigel Farage failed to secure his South Thanet seat, and has now resigned as his ‘earthquake’ has amounted to 1 MP (who switched from the Tories anyway). Clegg’s gone too, as has Miliband, meaning that some brutal leadership battles will be fought and that the face of British politics will shift, losing key figures who have shaped the country for the last five years. ‘Teflon Nigel’ is no more, which I guess is one of a handful of positives to take out of last night.

Regardless, there is now a strong case for electoral reform. UKIP received 12.6% of the national vote share, but have been awarded only one MP. The SNP meanwhile received 4.8% of the vote and won 56 MPs. Electoral reform has been something sought by the center and the left for quite some time, but now the desire for change will be much more widespread, and there is obviously greater awareness of the way in which First Past The Post skews the results.

The election was eerily reminiscent of the Tories 1992 win, when a Sun backed campaign allowed John Major to win five years in office. Ed Miliband may not have been the most charming leader, but the media’s campaign of vitriol against him certainly played a part in his loss, and we need to re-evaluate the role of the papers in forming public opinion.

Allegedly the Liberal Democrats have been holding a leash on the Tories, limiting their brutal cuts, but now we could see the full fury of David Cameron and his cohorts. They are in a position where they can wreak havoc on the lives of millions of people, squeezing every bit of money they can out of working people while they’re banker friends get off without paying tax bills. If what we’ve seen so far was only a fraction of their contempt for the people of this nation, I am truly worried by what they’ll do next.

Don’t Let The Media Steal Your Vote.

Tomorrow is judgement day. We get to hold politicians to account, and we are able to dictate who we want to have power. Each and every one of us, as long as we are registered, get to go to a polling station, cross a box next to whoever we want to represent us. This simple act has brought in monumental change, and it has been hard fought for. It is a precious right, a solemn duty and a magnificent power for us to hold. But there is a threat. Certain newspapers are launching viscous attacks to try and sway your opinion, and by doing this they are trying to steal your precious vote. Don’t let them.

There is a myth of impartiality when it comes to news, but most of the time the media at least tries to pretend it is somewhat fair. But most of the press manages to do this; however, on today of all days, the day before we pick our next government, the British media has shown its true colours, and surprisingly they are pretty blue. This doesn’t apply to all media outlets, and while some disclosure is helpful, the opinions spouted about today are little more than petty and unhelpful name calling; there is no substance behind their claims.

The Sun and The Daily Mail, hardly paragons of virtue when it comes to journalism, have launched a horrific tirade against Ed Miliband and the Labour Party. Like it or not these papers have immense power when it comes to influencing the public, but each one has launched personal, scathing attacks on the Labour leader. Had these attacks been built on a foundation of questioning Labour policies I would have understood the point of the articles, but the diatribe by these papers have mocked Miliband’s ability to eat, they have criticised his kitchen, and have tried to make his romantic history the subject of salacious gossip. This isn’t how a Prime Minister should be chosen, and it raises serious questions about these papers’ integrity.

Let’s look below the surface, at who owns these gossip magazines masquerading as newspapers. Rupert Murdoch, owner of News International and The Sun, is an Australian born man who has taken US citizenship so he could buy TV outlets in the US. Viscount Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail, is a ‘non-dom’ meaning he lives here but does not pay tax on his earnings. Do either of these people sound like they represent you?

These papers have supported the Conservatives for quite some time now, but the brutality of their attacks, and the way in which they have thrown all pretenses of impartiality out of the window, means that they have become little more than overpriced political leaflets. Partisanship shouldn’t impact the news; the news is factual, and this shouldn’t change depending on whether you are a devoted Tory or a floating lefty. Facts are facts. They don’t change.

One thing is for certain come Friday morning; the British media has shown its true colours, and it won’t be able to regain the trust of the public after this moronic attempt to swing the election. Of course this isn’t a new thing; The Sun proudly claims that it was the driving force of John Major’s 1992 election with its infamous light bulb headline, but this isn’t the job of journalists. “It’s The Sun Wot Won It’ shouldn’t be a statement of pride, it is a shameful shadow on the face of our bright democracy. The media has an immense influence, and it has gone to far.

Politicians can be judged by many things, but shouldn’t we look at policies and the interests that these parties represent rather than just relying on haircuts, photo opportunities and soundbites. There is a lot at stake tomorrow, and Miliband’s ability (or inability) to eat a bacon sandwich shouldn’t be the deciding factor. Democracy only works if we participate, and mindlessly following the platitudes of these newspapers doesn’t help ordinary people one bit.

Negative Campaigning, Diet Tories, & Miliband’s Surprising Boost

Three months ago it looked as though Cameron should sweep this election easily; Miliband was looking weak, Clegg appeared fatigued and defeated, and Farage was still celebrating his gains from last year’s May EU election. But this has all changed, and now we could be on the brink of a Labour dominated hung parliament. Ed Miliband doesn’t have the charm, charisma and personality of Tony Blair, and he isn’t as strong as Cameron in terms of physical presence, but he is bringing something different to the table. He has a vision, which is more than can be said for his opponents.

If you watched last night’s BBC Question Time special with the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders, then hopefully you’ll have been struck with the same realisation as me. Cameron and Clegg were in tandem in their condemnation of the Labour Party, and they seemed to rely on the age old tactic of distraction and diversion rather than resting on their own laurels and achievements. This may be because they have achieved little – the deficit is still high, nearly a million people rely on food banks, and people have died from welfare cuts. By some measures the economy may have improved, but this has come at the cost of peoples lives. While all this is going on, these two party leaders have the audacity to assault Labour’s record from five years ago. This isn’t just poor sportsmanship, it shows a fundamental lack of accountability and a lack of respect for the public by those in government.

I’m by no means Labour’s biggest fan. It’s far too close to the center of the political spectrum, and it has adopted many of the Conservative policies and ideologies that I despise. But it’s a better alternative. The party is like a Diet Tory option; it’s a diluted version of a nasty substance. I’d rather see the Green Party’s national prominence grow than see a Labour government, but with out antiquated electoral system this is unlikely to happen, so it looks like Labour are the only feasible alternative to the Tories.

One audience member hit the nail on the head last night – he questioned Cameron’s ability to comprehend the moral dimension of the questions being asked, rather than concentrating on the fiscal substance. Cameron tried to answer this but fell into his habit of reciting statistics about the economy, completely missing the point of the question. Be under no illusion – a Labour led government would certainly cut public services. They’ve not lied about this, but they’ve got some understanding of the human side of politics. Clegg claims to have learnt this (five years too late), and he claims he’ll add a heart to a Tory government, but can we trust him after the suffering of the last five years?

This election has seen negative campaigning hit a new low; every single Tory advert and campaign point is some form of scaremongering about an SNP/Labour deal, but last night Miliband ruled out such an agreement. Whether he will stick to his word is a different matter, but this sort of campaign says more about the lack of vision and planning by the Conservative Party. They know they cannot convince you by enticing you with policies (which is how elections should work) so they are trying to scare you into voting for them. It’s not an issue of the carrot or the stick, they haven’t even offered the carrot, they are going straight for the coercion and forceful tactic.

The one thing noticeable in the three televised debates (if you can call them that) has been that Miliband has stood steadfast by his vision of a better Britain. Whether he can achieve this is unclear, but he is certainly managing to sell himself and his party with this dream rather than simply attacking the Tories outright.

Russell Brand Vs Ed Miliband, New Media, & David Cameron’s Mistake

Ed Miliband recently had a midnight rendezvous with comedian turned political commentator Russell Brand. This spurred rumours that Brand was about to endorse the Labour leader, although it emerged that Miliband had been there to film an interview for Brand’s show The Trews. David Cameron immediately criticized this move, claiming that Ed shouldn’t be canvasing a ‘joke’ like Brand, yet Miliband has done exactly what politics need – he’s gone to the place young people get their news. This shouldn’t be a source of shame, it should be applauded.

Brand has over a million subscribers on YouTube, most of which seem to be from a younger age demographic than traditional media consumers. We already know that this age group is apathetic and unlikely to turn out in high numbers on election day, and Brand is not helping this by promoting his argument that we shouldn’t vote, but Miliband is now going to be able to talk to a million people who Cameron isn’t popular with, and who aren’t being spoken to by politicians. This is a golden opportunity, and it shows that the Labour leader isn’t content with only talking to those already on his side.

Politicians have a tendency to talk to people who they know are sympathetic to them; this is why Cameron talks to businesses so much and it’s why the Greens and the Liberals have been swamping Universities. Miliband is trying to get a wide range of support; he’s spoken to businesses, and he is now trying to capture that all important youth vote. Brand’s commentary has been left leaning, and he has been scathing in his criticism of all politicians, including MIliband, but his disciples could be swayed by Miliband’s perfomance in an interview with Brand. If the Labour leader can convince these viewers that he is the lesser of two evils then he could well end up reaping rich rewards from this short interview.

It’s no good politicians going on BBC News, Sky News, Newsnight and Question Time if they want to talk to the apathetic, angry, young people. They need to use new media to spread their arguments, and The Trews seems like the perfect way to do this. This isn’t some egregious malpractice by politicians, it is simply a politician using a different medium to talk to people – how is this even being condemned? Surely we should want our politicians talking to people.

Cameron and the Conservatives’ contempt for Brand is understandable seeing as they fall on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but the Prime Minister could end up regretting being so dismissive of a man who has amassed a large following from his political ramblings. At least Brand has gotten people thinking about politics, even if his answers are unconventional, unattainable and undesirable.

Old media is crumbling, it can survive, but it needs to embrace new media. I eagerly await Brand’s interview with Miliband, and I hope that it convinces some young people to go an vote, because that’s how we get change.

Avengers: Age Of Ultron Review…Marvel Have Done It Again (No Spoilers)

Avengers Assemble was always going to be a hard act to follow, but Marvel have produced an absolutely phenomenal follow up movie.

DC must be quivering in their boots at the moment. The Batman Vs Superman trailer and Joker image have certainly gotten people talking about the eagerly anticipated next step in DC’s Cinematic Universe,but Marvel remain the dominant force in cinemas because they’ve had such a big head start.

Marvel’s first Avengers film had to unite five very different movies and characters; the wartime period piece of Captain America, the science based tone of the two Iron Man films, and the magic realms of Asgard (we’ll ignore the Hulk film because frankly everybody has forgotten that the movie even happened). This time around the team has been well forged, they understand each other and are working as a cohesive unit. Audiences know the characters, they know the mythos, so the movie can begin right in the action. There is no time wasted introducing the characters, and this pays off on the big screen as no time is squandered.

Throughout the scattered one liners, myriad of Easter Eggs, and sometimes solemn tones of the movie, it is hard not to be gripped. The Marvel universe  spans multiple films, TV channels and a Netflix show, yet the movie doesn’t make itself complicated for casual viewers, who are obviously the ones Marvel needs to convince. To understand this movie all you need is to have seen the first Avengers film and The Winter Soldier; obviously there are tonnes of tidbits which are of interest because they have a wider impact, but the crux of the story relies on those two movies. With that being said, this is arguably the most important addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe; the stakes have never been higher in a Marvel movie, and the seeds of future projects have certainly been sewn with this latest flick.

Unlike previous movies, the villain is a formidable foe. The Marvel films have suffered pretty badly from mediocre and powerless enemies thus far; Tom Hiddlestone’s Loki is the only memorable one of all the Marvel films, but Ultron makes quite an impact. James Spader’s velvety voice and dark humour fits the character so well, and the enemy is an imposing image throughout the film.

The first Avengers movie was stunning, but it had quite a lot  of dialogue designed only to bridge gaps and make a transition to the next stage of the story. This time around however, the story seems nearly seamless, with each scene serving a clear purpose. The plot is nearly organic, flowing like a cascading waterfall, sweeping audiences along in its unstoppable current.

Marvel have a wonderful formula which enables them to interweave humour and seriousness in their movies; this is no exception, but the humour seems rather concentrated towards the start, with the movie ending with a significantly bleaker tone than it began. It’s still not as somber and bleak as Batman Vs Superman or Man of Steel, but there is a sense of seriousness that has been missing from the Marvel Cinematic Universe so far. This change of direction is what keeps the films fresh, and it keeps audiences on their toes.

Elizabeth Olsen, who plays Scarlet Witch, is a wonderful addition to the shared universe, although her accent was rather inconsistent, going from strong Eastern European to one where she seemed to have only a hint of her roots in the voice. Maybe this was just me, but it got slightly jarring at points. After the runaway success of Quicksilver in X-Men: Days of Future Past, Marvel were always going to struggle to win over audiences with their iteration of the character, but Aaron Taylor Johnson managed to make the role his own, being distinct from last years version.

Marvel have perfected the overarching narrative, and they have prepared their universe for the beginning of Civil War with this movie; strangely enough this film seems like it is setting up the next Captain America film just as much as it is acting as a sequel to the Avengers. Perhaps this is because die hard fans (like myself) are aware of the direction of the Cinematic Universe, but the movie has gotten me even more excited for next years Captain America sequel.

Age of Ultron is Marvel’s most ambitious project to date, and the gamble of playing with a more serious tone has certainly paid off.

Why Aren’t We Applauding The People Who Followed Norman Tebbit’s Advice?

Conservative Norman Tebbit famously declared that the unemployed should get on their bikes and find work, yet we now see the result of this speech and people are furious. Why is this?

Let’s get one thing straight: immigrants aren’t the source of all evil. They aren’t devilish demons crawling up from the gates of Hell with the sole intention of undercutting British workers and scrounging off of the system. They are trying to seek a better life for themselves and their families; this is a human instinct, and they deserve respect for it. They are simply humans born somewhere else. They aren’t monsters, and the idea that they have sinister intentions is a horrid concept.

That place, somewhere else, where they were born obviously didn’t have the ability to sustain them, and it didn’t give them the opportunity to better themselves. So they lifted themselves up, they uprooted themselves and their families, and they came here. For some reason the media and anti-immigration campaigners like to depict this as an easy decision to make, but it isn’t. It takes a lot to move somewhere else, and it isn’t right for us to demonise them and make it seem like a walk in the park. It reduces a complex and difficult decision to choosing which drink you’ll order at a bar. That’s hardly fair, is it?

Conservatives love the self-made success story. They like to hold these people up as an icon, as an example of the people who we should try to emulate. Except they are ignoring the best example of this laudable principle. These people got on the metaphorical bike and peddled away to places with a brighter opportunity, where initiative and actions are given a high premium and are allegedly encouraged. But what did these brave people encounter when they arrived on the apparently brighter shores? They found a braying mob, angry at the people who looked and sounded different for virtually anything that was possibly wrong in the country.

The fire that fueled this mob wasn’t organic though, it was being fed by an ever increasing flow of bigotry, misinformation, and scaremongering by multiple perpetrators. Sure, Nigel Farage and his UKIP cohorts have been adding more wood and fuel to the fire, but successive governments have failed to properly educate people, and a tide of Islamophobia has swamped over the British media. People are rightfully angry at dwindling public services, the lack of affordable housing and the rising deficit. But immigrants aren’t to blame for these issues, at least not as a root cause. The lack of affordable housing is a direct result of Thatcher’s Right to Buy scheme, which while helping so many people onto the housing ladder, it also stopped affordable housing being built to replace these properties, creating a catastrophic time bomb. The NHS is crumbling because it is not receiving enough funding; it has been carved up for businesses, and a profit margin has been introduced to a healthcare market – something which we should all find concerning. Not to mention the fact that the NHS relies on foreign workers in order to function. The deficit is a result of multiple screw ups by governments and banks, but to blame the most vulnerable people for this is one of the weakest arguments I’ve ever heard. Immigration has been blamed for these things, but it is quite evidently not the cause.

The truth will always resist simplicity. Simple answers aren’t painting a full picture. We need to look further, dig deeper and imagine others as real people if we are to have a meaningful conversation about immigration and the state of the country. We can have an open conversation about immigration, but the demonisation of immigrants has been blocking our path to this conversation for too long.

I have so much respect for anyone willing to face adversity head on, to build a better life for themselves regardless of the odds. Sadly, the accomplishment of privileged people has often been pushed ahead of the true heroes here.

Avengers, Batman Vs Superman, Star Wars & Trailer Overload

It’s been a good week for those of us who love comic books and sci do. We’ve had a brand new Star Wars trailer giving us a glimpse of Han Solo and Chewie, then we were handed our long awaited Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice footage, and the week culminates in the release of Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Given that The Force Awakens won’t hit screens until December, and the Man of Steel sequel is set for release in March of next year (2016) it seems like we will see an awful lot of these films before they are released.

Think of Age of Ultron. The first three trailers were fantastic. They were tantalising, gave us a taste of Marvel’s magic humour, and they displayed a mesmerising array of action. Iron Man was punching the freaking Hulk. That was all we needed. Granted, I was going to see this film even if it wasn’t advertised, but even casual audiences were excited about the film with the original trailers.

Then Marvel began releasing plot points, clips, pictures and even more information. Since February I’ve been actively avoiding Avengers material. I want to be shocked, excited and emotional in the cinema. I don’t want to know the story already. With the digital age we are seeing more and more information leaked from sets, and studios have to release mind bogglingly quantities of footage to keep themselves relevant.

We haven’t seen the last of the Star Wars footage, and Batman Vs Superman has been dogged by multiple rumours, yet both of these movies have been incredibly secretive while they were being shot. It’s hard to hide these spoilerific posts, but I would rather enjoy that first glimpse of the material in the cinema, where it belongs, than on my tiny phone screen.