# data[].attributes.body
Populism causing an increase in political participation? This article looks at the potential for populism to cause an increase in voter turnout and political participation as people who may have felt previously underrepresented may turn to the voting booths. Alternatively, it can be seen in the recent US presidential election that voter turnout can often increase if the stakes are higher and the outcome of the election is of greater significance to 'the people' as the prospect of a populist leader may encourage a vote against that outcome.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While many observers view the rise of populism as a negative development for democracy, other authors have suggested populist parties might boost political participation by attracting disaffected citizens who do not normally vote. Drawing on a new study, Arndt Leininger and Maurits J. Meijers find evidence that in Central and Eastern Europe the presence of populist parties is associated with a rise in turnout. However, in Western Europe, there is no such effect, indicating that context matters for the impact populism has on democracy.
Since the late 1990s onward, both right-wing and left-wing populist parties have become important players in European democracies. As populist parties across Europe have gained electoral success and in some cases have been able to form government coalitions, political scientists have turned to the question of what the rise of populism means for the quality of liberal democracy.
Do populist party have different effects in newer and older democracies?
Populist parties are often considered to be a threat to the stability of liberal democracies. As Cas Mudde famously noted, populists regard 'the people' as a pure and homogeneous entity who share one 'general will' that needs to be translated into policy. As such, populism is considered to be antithetical to democratic pluralism and the rule of law, leading authors like Jan-Werner Müller to conclude that populism poses a danger to democracy. And indeed, the rich literature on populism has shown that populist parties and populist leaders negatively affect the separation of powers, the rule of law, media freedom and minority rights.

Yet, scholars have also stressed the potential positive effects of populism. In their book Populism: A Very Short Introduction, Cas Mudde and Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser argue that populist parties can also be a 'corrective for democracy' by increasing political participation among politically disaffected citizens. In this line of argument, populist movements and parties voice the concerns of citizens who have been previously underrepresented by the political establishment. Yet, to that there was no conclusive evidence on the effects of populist parties on voter turnout.
Does it matter whether populist parties are right-wing or left-wing?
The vast academic literature on voter turnout also provides evidence that political parties can boost turnout. Higher campaign expenditures by political parties are positively related to higher voter turnout. While some scholars have argued that a higher diversity of political parties participating in elections depresses turnout as they make election campaigns harder to follow, others find that political fragmentation is good for political participation. The idea is that voters are more likely to be drawn to the voting booth when party competition makes elections meaningful. In other words, voters are likely to go out and vote when the stakes are higher.

If anything, populist parties arguably increase the urgency of elections - both for potential populist voters and for their political opponents. Populist parties can increase the clarity of choice in an election as they emphasise previously ignored political issues - such as immigration or European integration - and adopt a clear position on those issues. Populist parties' candidates also do not shy away from using unconventional communication strategies. Moreover, populist parties are found to use less complex language which makes it easier for voters to understand what they advocate. By communicating simple messages in colloquial language, populist parties can make politics more accessible. And if politics is less of a distant affair, citizens may be more prone to participate.

In a recent study, we examine the effects of populist parties on voter turnout at the aggregate level in 31 European countries from 1970 until 2018. For Central and Eastern Europe, we find robust evidence that when at least one populist party is represented in parliament prior to the election, voter turnout is higher. In the first elections after the fall of the Iron Curtain, turnout was high in post-communist countries. In years that followed, however, turnout in post-communist democracies dropped significantly - also in comparison to other newly democratised regions such as Latin America. It has been frequently suggested that citizens were quickly disillusioned as they saw that the transition to democracy and political pluralism did not absolve societies of all their problems. Our results could indicate that disillusion with democracy arguably enhances the mobilisation potential of populist parties.
Turnout at the cost of democracy?
By contrast, in West European countries no effect of populist parties on electoral participation could be established. This suggests that populist parties in established parties do not encourage masses of previously underrepresented citizens to go out and vote. Rather, populist parties attract dissatisfied voters who previously voted for mainstream parties, as recent research shows.
For more information, see the authors' accompanying paper in Please read our comments policy before commenting Note: This article gives the views of the authors, not the position of EUROPP - European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. . About the authors Political Studies
Populism comes in many different guises. Populist radical right parties combine populism with nativism and authoritarianism. The populist radical right usually defines 'the pure people' in ethnic or cultural terms and considers the 'liberal political establishment' as the 'corrupt elites'. By contrast, the populist radical left combines populism with a fundamental critique of market-liberalism and new public management. For the populist radical left, 'the people' are an amalgam of ordinary citizens threatened by corporations and neoliberal elites.

The difference between right-wing and left-wing populism can be important as these parties may exert different effects on the quality of democracy. The presence of right-wing populist parties is associated with a decline in minority rights, while a left-wing populist presence is associated with higher levels of minority rights. Yet, the presence of both left-wing and right-wing populist parties has a negative effect on mutual constraints in the balance of power.

Our results show that both left-wing and right-wing populist parties can increase voter turnout in Central and Eastern Europe. In Western Europe, however, neither spur citizens' participation in national elections.

Our findings, once again, highlight the importance of context for understanding political events. For Central and Eastern Europe, we find robust evidence that parliamentary representation of populist parties does affect voter turnout. This may sound like good news for democracy in Europe's newer democracies as high levels of popular participation are often deemed necessary for a well-functioning representative democracy. Yet, increased turnout going hand in hand with support for populism is hardly a sign of a healthy democracy. For Western Europe, our findings are sobering to those who claim populist parties have a participatory effect on West European democracies by appealing to the disaffected 'silent majority'. Given our findings, politicians would be well advised to reject such claims made by populist actors.

_________________________________

Arndt Leininger - Freie Universität Berlin
Arndt Leininger is a Research Fellow at the Chair for Political Sociology of Germany at Freie Universität Berlin. He holds a PhD in Governance from the Hertie School of Governance, Berlin. His work has been published in Political Science Research and Methods, Electoral Studies and Research and Politics among others. His research interests include direct democracy, turnout, youth participation in politics, election forecasting, economic voting and electoral studies more broadly.

Maurits J Meijers - Radboud University
Maurits J Meijers is an Assistant Professor for Comparative Politics at the Department of Political Science at Radboud University in Nijmegen. He holds a PhD in Political Science from the Hertie School of Governance, Berlin. His work has been published in outlets such as Comparative Political Studies, the Journal of Politics and the Journal of European Public Policy. His work focuses on questions pertaining to political representation at the national and European level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do populist parties increase electoral participation?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While many observers view the rise of populism as a negative development for democracy, other authors have suggested populist parties might boost political participation by attracting disaffected citizens who do not normally vote. Drawing on a new study, Arndt Leininger and Maurits J.

# data[].attributes.body
Populism, in this case, aims to erode public faith of ‘the establishment’ in order to cast distrust on mainstream parties and election results. A mistrust of the legitimate leaders is likely to lead to a rejection of results when it comes to elections and therefore Trump is a key supporter of promoting this perception of fraudulent behaviour by elites. This is done in order to undermine results, evident in Trump's rejection to acknowledge his loss and Biden’s win in the 2020 election. This mechanism of distrust is used to catalyse political protests and create an illusion that elites are overruling the majority.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Following the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President, a great deal of political commentary has focused on the rise of populism and its possible impact on Western democracies. Pippa Norris argues that populism heightens the risk of electoral malpractice in three distinct ways: by damaging public trust in democracy, by undermining international standards of electoral integrity, and by increasing the potential for collusion with foreign governments.
Since the earthquake of Brexit in June last year, and Trump's victory four months later, the news has been dominated by stories about populism, including whether European elections suggest that populist support is either rising or stalled.
Damaging trust in democratic institutions
The media has also been fascinated simultaneously by problems of electoral integrity. This includes Trump's repeated claims of millions of fraudulent votes cast for Clinton, leading him to establish the new Presidential Advisory Commission on Electoral Integrity. Problems of cyber security continue to be investigated by the U.S. Congress following intelligence reports of Russian interference in the U.S. elections.

A coincidence? I don't think so. A new Harvard report suggests that populists typically heighten risks of electoral malpractices through three main mechanisms: damaging public trust in democratic processes, undermining international standards of electoral integrity, and colluding with Russian interference in Western contests.

Firstly, in terms of the consequences for democratic cultures, populism is likely to erode public faith and confidence in the fairness and integrity of the electoral process. My work with Ronald Inglehart found that populists characteristically attack 'the establishment' and fuel mistrust of the core institutions of liberal democracy, including elections as well as mainstream parties, parliaments, the media, and the judiciary. During and even after the U.S. presidential election campaign, for example, President Trump repeatedly alleged that the contest was rigged and there was massive voter fraud, claiming 3-5 million people voted illegally, and calling for a 'major investigation'.

Trump supporters, especially if hostile towards immigrants and anti-government, are particularly prone to believe in rampant electoral fraud. Populist leaders typically gain support from mistrust of elites and they seek to further undermine faith in the legitimate role of the media ('enemy of the people'), the independence of the courts ('so-called judges'), and the legislative procedures in Congress. Where people lose faith in political institutions, this depresses turnout and catalyses protest politics. This does not imply that popular support for liberal democratic values has been greatly weakened by populists - since so far there is little evidence of this alarmist claim in Western societies. But in the longer-term, public trust of politicians, parties and parliaments, already at record lows in many countries, is likely to be further damaged by populist rhetoric.
Violating international standards of electoral integrity
There are other ways that public confidence in government can be eroded if populists are elected to office. When campaigning, populist rhetoric frequently raises exaggerated expectations which are hard to meet, potentially deepening disillusionment among their followers. Populists also advocate extreme policies, dividing the electorate and strengthening social intolerance. Their leaders characteristically make vague and sweeping promises through simplistic sound-bite slogans with broad appeal ('Make America Great Again', 'Build a Wall', 'Choose France', 'Take Back Control'). Demagogic speeches emphasise potential threats from 'outsiders' and criticise elites, but avoid presenting detailed policy platforms.

If elected to power, as neophytes, populist leaders may lack the political skills and experience to implement their promises and make government work effectively. Extreme policy positions hamper their capacity to build working coalitions across multiple parliamentary parties, or require major compromise to get things done. In the longer-term, all of these characteristics mean populist politicians are likely to disappoint their supporters and weaken faith more generally in representative institutions.

Populists also use practices directly violating international standards of electoral integrity and domestic laws. In the worst cases, populist authoritarians reinforce their power through fraud and corruption, undermine human rights, and restrict the playing field for party competition.

Thus Venezuelan elections under both Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro have been plagued by corruption, the misuse of state resources, and clientelism, triggering massive street protests. Venezuela ranks 118th worldwide in the Perception of Electoral Integrity index and ranks near the bottom of Transparency International Corruption Index. Meanwhile in the Philippines, the 2016 campaign of the populist Rodrigo Duterte saw observer reports of vote-buying, malfeasance, and election-related violence.

Under President Erdogan, Turkey's constitutional referendum on 16 April 2017 was strongly criticised by OSCE observers due to the imprisonment of thousands of citizens, state control of the media, and limits on civil society organisations. Malpractices are common in Viktor Orban's Hungary, including unfair electoral laws, gerrymandering, and the lack of a level playing field in the 2014 parliamentary elections. Since the election of populist leaders, both Turkey and Hungary have declined in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index.

These problems typically generate contentious elections marked by opposition party appeals against the results, mass protests, and problems of unstable governance. They are especially common in 'hybrid' regimes, which are neither fully democratic nor autocratic, with the trappings of competitive elections but which lack a level playing field for all parties and candidates. Problems are exacerbated in polarised party systems with winner-take-all presidential executives.

Even in Western democracies, several populist leaders have violated specific electoral and anti-corruption laws when campaigning. Systemic corruption is a breeding ground for populism, and leaders claim to fight this problem, although in practice they often succumb to illicit practice.

In Britain, for example, the first-ever UKIP Member of Parliament was charged with electoral fraud (submitting false signatures on nomination papers). Nigel Farage and seven other UKIP MEPS have been under investigation for the misuse of EU funds.

In Australia, the leader of One Nation, Pauline Hanson, and the party co-founder, David Ettridge, were jailed in 2003 for dishonestly taking electoral reimbursements. In Austria, support for the far right Carinthia Freedom Party plummeted in 2013, and many elected leaders resigned, after a massive corruption and patronage scandal including accusations of bribery, passing on insider information, accepting money to influence European Union law-making, nepotism, money laundering and kick-backs connected to the state bank.
Colluding with Russian interference
The French Front National was sanctioned for the misuse of 340,000 euros in campaign funds in 2011 and Marine Le Pen is currently under investigation for spending 5 million euros in EU funds on fake jobs. Problems of public ethics have also plagued Trump's White House, from a lack of transparency with the President's tax returns, breaking decades of tradition, to conflicts of interest over Trump's business interests at home and abroad, and the resignation of Michael Flynn over his Russian consultancy fees.

Of course, cases of corruption, crony capitalism, and malfeasance occur with many other types of parties and politicians, not just populists. But Transparency International, reports that populists are particularly prone to stepping over the line by engaging in unethical behaviour. In speeches, ever since the rise of populists in America's Gilded Age, such leaders commonly rail against 'corrupt elites' ('Drain the Swamp'), to gain popular support from disaffected voters. In practice, however, populists often appear willing to transgress the law to gain power and enrich themselves and their supporters, rolling back anti-corruption laws and flagrantly violating ethical standards of public life.

Finally, authoritarian regimes ('black knights') have actively sought to undermine democratic forces abroad. The clearest evidence concerns Russia, accused of using several techniques to put its thumb on the electoral scale in favour of populists.

One is to supply resources: Russia has helped to fund populist parties; for example, Marine Le Pen borrowed 9 million euros from a Russian bank in the party's 2014 campaign, and she visited Putin seeking further support during the 2017 election. The Dutch Freedom Party signed a " cooperation agreement" with Putin's United Russia party. Other techniques use propaganda, misinformation, and cyberattacks. Russian interference has long been suspected in elections in post-Soviet states, notably in attempts to disrupt contests and undermine democratic forces in neighbouring Ukraine.

The intelligence and cyber security communities report active Russian interference in Western elections, including the attack on the Bundestag computers in 2015, well before the security breaches of the DNC computers, and attempts to hack into voting registers in several state offices during the 2016 campaign. Russian misinformation through social media campaigns is generally designed to undermine support for moderate parties and bolster populist candidates, as well as casting confusion and doubt about the general integrity of democratic processes.

Persistent questions about Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election, which are under investigation, continue to plague the Trump administration. In France, it remains to be determined who exactly the culprits were behind the massive hacking attack on Emmanuel Macron, with fake and genuine documents leaked two days before ballots were cast. But the fingerprints allegedly point towards both Russia and the American far right.

Western governments have sought to counter these efforts; in the Netherlands, for example, in the run up to the general election, the government decided that all paper ballots in the Netherlands would be counted by hand, ditching its counting software on the grounds that it was vulnerable to hacking. Similarly, the head of German intelligence has warned that they are on the alert for Russian cyber espionage, disinformation campaigns and fake news, including repeated phishing attacks on the CDU/CSU. But it has become more and more difficult for large campaign organisations to maintain cyber-security against increasingly-sophisticated attacks.

Populists are not directly responsible for Russian interference. But they need to speak out loud and clear to denounce these acts or else, as the main beneficiaries, they become guilty by association. Trump's casual dismissal of the threats ("this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story") has only made investigators more suspicious.
Please read our comments policy before commenting Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP - European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. . About the author
Therefore, further systematic evidence needs to be gathered to determine the impact of each of these practices. Populists are far from alone in engaging in electoral malpractices. But assembling pieces of the puzzle leads to the conclusion that populists are particularly prone to heightening serious risks to free and fair elections, by further eroding public confidence in the electoral process and democratic institutions, using practices violating international standards of electoral integrity, and potentially colluding with authoritarian allies seeking to interfere in democratic contests.

In this regard, Trump is not exceptional but part of a broader syndrome. It remains to be seen whether and how these challenges can be addressed most effectively to restore public trust, strengthen electoral integrity, and thereby safeguard democracy.

_________________________________

Pippa Norris - Harvard University / University of Sydney
Pippa Norris is the McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics at Harvard University, the ARC Laureate Professor of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney, and Founding Director of the Electoral Integrity Project. She is the author of more than forty books including Radical Right (2005), Why Elections Fail (2016) and Strengthening Electoral Integrit y (2017), all with Cambridge University Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why populism is a threat to electoral integrity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President, a great deal of political commentary has focused on the rise of populism and its possible impact on Western democracies. Pippa Norris argues that populism heightens the risk of electoral malpractice in three distinct ways: by damaging public trust in democracy, by undermining international standards of electoral integrity, and by increasing the potential for collusion with foreign governments.

# data[].attributes.body
Sonny Lo Shiu Hing discusses how populism has led to political violence in Hong Kong. The article demonstrates how populism can be manipulated by opposing types of people (democratic and nationalistic) as there is now clarity regarding who should and who should not support populism, as well as how populism can be used for political gain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If populism is a term used by social scientists to refer to political movements mobilizing public opinion against the elite rule, it did and does contribute to political violence in Hong Kong.

Populism can exist in two different ends of a political spectrum, ranging from left to right. It can be found in democracies and authoritarian regimes. In the case of Hong Kong, populist political movements have become far more prominent since the anti-national education movement in 2012, when the Hong Kong government clumsily put forward its national education policy, and when tens of thousands of students, parents and intellectuals succeeded in opposing it and portraying it as an attempt by the regime to "brainwash" school children.

After 2012, more populist movements have sprung up, including the 2014 Occupy Central movement, the so-called "Fishball Revolution" in Mongkok in early 2016 and most importantly the 2019 anti-extradition movement.

All of these populist movements have shared one thing in common: the strong appeals to public opinion against the elitist rule in Hong Kong. Elite rule has been seen as undemocratic, non-consultative and at worst socially exploitative.

The populists in Hong Kong have evolved very rapidly and significantly from 2012 to 2019 in two aspects. First, the populist movements in 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2019 have carried a very strong anti-mainland ideology. The 2012 anti-national education movement saw the education curriculum as being reformed in favor of the good image and the "rewriting" of the history of the mainland regime in power.

The 2014 Occupy Central movement aimed at changing the democracy deficit in Hong Kong to a democratic system akin to the West, intentionally democratizing the special administrative region but unintentionally threatening the national security of the People's Republic of China (PRC).

The 2016 "Fishball Revolution" aimed at protecting Hong Kong's cultural and social heritage but carrying a very strong anti-mainland overtone. Similarly, the 2019 anti-extradition movement has remained anti-mainland, trying to retain the "purity" of Hong Kong's existing lifestyle and civil liberties. De-mainlandization is the hallmark of the pro-democracy populist movements in Hong Kong.

Second, all of the aforesaid populist movements were orchestrated by pro-democracy activists, but the side-effect was to simulate the emergence of an opposing nationalistic and pro-Beijing populist movement. The corresponding emergence and consolidation of the pro-Beijing nationalistic populists have begun to clash with the democratic populists since the Occupy Central movement from September to December 2014.

The outcome was that the police had to separate the two types of populists in Hong Kong. Indeed, not all populists favor a violent path of confrontation, but some extreme populists tend to see not only politics as a zero-sum game but also their political foes as undesirable elements who should be eliminated. If political tolerance is a feature of democratic politics, the extreme populists lack such democratic spirit.

With the passage of time, political violence erupted between the democratic and nationalistic populists. Brawls between the pro-democracy and nationalistic populists took place in Hong Kong last Saturday and Sunday, when fights among citizens could be seen in the Amoy Plaza and on the King's Road outside the Fortress Mass Transit Railway (MTR) station. The nationalist populists sang the national anthem in the Amoy Plaza, triggering disputes with some democratic populists.

Some nationalistic populists even went so far as to remove the stickers and posters on the Lennon Wall in different districts, leading to confrontations and violent encounters with the democratic populists. On the King's Road, some nationalistic populists chased the black shirts and tried to beat them up, bringing about an immediate retaliation from a minority of black shirts.

Interestingly and consistently, the nationalistic populists support the police, as could be seen in all of the pro-police rallies in the past three months, while the democratic populists tend to be critical of the police performance in the entire anti-extradition movement, especially the Yuen Long terror attack on the night of July 21.
Clearly, political violence has been directly stimulated by the clashes between the democratic and nationalistic populists in Hong Kong.

With the benefit of hindsight, the escalation of conflicts between these two types of populists in Hong Kong could be seen from 2012 to 2019, as both camps have been utilizing strong and extremist language to attack the other side verbally and fiercely. Their verbal attacks and criticisms could be seen on Internet television programs and social media.

Verbal violence gradually developed into deep-rooted political hatred and physical violence, which culminated in the 2014 Occupy Central movement and which resurfaced in a far more prominent, visible and serious way in the 2019 anti-extradition saga.

The populist groups in Hong Kong are quite complex and diverse. Among the democratic populists, some of them are socialist in ideological orientation. The socialists, or democratic-socialist populists, believe that Hong Kong is an exploitative capitalist society where social welfare and public housing are insufficient, social mobility is difficult, the tax system is biased in favor of the rich, and the political system is oligarchic and undemocratic.

In view of the failure to push for a Western-style democratic system for Hong Kong, especially in 2015 when a political reform model proposed by the government was regarded by an overwhelming majority of democrats as pseudo-democratic, a minority of democratic and socialist populists increasingly see a peaceful path of fighting for democracy as politically useless.

Gradually, a "valiant front" among the radical populists emerged and resorted to political violence to make their voices and demands heard. These radical and extreme populists believe that Hong Kong's political system fails completely and that the mainland government's intervention in local matters has damaged the autonomy of Hong Kong.

On the other hand, the nationalist populists also have a complex composition. Some village people and clansmen have been under the influence of China's united front work. They are politically nationalistic, seeing both peaceful and violent protests as socially disruptive and naturally harmful to the business and economic prosperity of Hong Kong.

A minority of nationalistic populists also resort to violence to attack and beat up the democratic and socialist populists, as could be seen in the Yuen Long tragedy on the night of July 21 and the violent encounters in the Amoy Plaza and Fortress MTR area on September 15.

While violence should be condemned, as it destabilizes any society, it is doubtful whether those who resort to violence can and will contribute to Hong Kong's democratization. Democracy entails not only a political system characterized by mutual checks and balances among the three branches of the government and competitive elections in the public choice of political leaders, but it also embraces the spirit of political tolerance.

Disturbingly, the populist violence growing out from the anti-extradition movement has long-term repercussions on Hong Kong's political landscape from now to 2047.
First, Beijing sees the violence in Hong Kong as a serious menace to its national security and is preparing to replace Hong Kong by utilizing Shenzhen.

If many Hong Kong people are so anti-mainland and anti-PRC, Beijing is simply grooming Shenzhen as the "socialist model" that would sooner or later replace Hong Kong as the main metropolitan city in South China. Shenzhen's economic growth has remained impressive and it has become a technological hub that attracts many talents from all parts of China.

Shenzhen is well-positioned to replace Hong Kong in the rapid development of the Greater Bay Area (GBA), regardless of whether Hong Kong can and will integrate with the GBA in the coming years.

Many democratic and socialist populists in Hong Kong, who are also localists with strong Hong Kong identities, see the territory's economic and social integration with the GBA as a process of deepening its mainlandization. Yet, in the eyes of Beijing's policy planners, Hong Kong's economic utility is gradually declining with the rapid economic rise of the mainland.

As such, Hong Kong is no longer be a window of China to modernize its domestic economy. The PRC has taken off economically and it is Hong Kong's economic competitiveness that would suffer in the midst of the rapid economic growth of the Greater Bay Area. Although some Hong Kong people believe that the territory's rule of law is unique, unlike Shenzhen and Shanghai, the reality is that the mainland's version of the rule of law is different from Hong Kong's.

The mainland concept of rule of law is more like rule by law; law is a tool of the regime to stabilize society and speed up economic development. The rule of law in Hong Kong, however, is to protect civil liberties and to challenge governmental authority rather than to buttress the regime in power.

Second, political violence in Hong Kong will unlikely fade away quickly. At present, it occurs on Saturdays and Sundays. The vandalism targeted at the MTR and public places will likely leave a deep imprint on the political development of Hong Kong from now to 2047. Whenever some radical political elements are "alienated," some of them will likely resort to extremism, violent actions and vandalism.

Yet, the transport corporations in Hong Kong, notably the MTR and Airport Authority, have remained resilient in the midst of the ongoing disturbances. Overnight and urgent repair work has been conducted in many MTR stations, resuming operations on Mondays when people go to work. Originally, the Airport Authority tolerated protestors occupying the airport, but later, in view of the hindrance to travelers, the utilization and implementation of the court injunctions has at least reduced the adverse impact of protests at the airport.

The pattern of weekend protests punctuated with public vandalism and police-protestors confrontations on Saturdays and Sundays, and of a relatively swift return to normalcy on Mondays, has become a hallmark of the Hong Kong disturbances in 2019. This "new normal" may become a feature of Hong Kong's populist protests and political violence.

Third, while both democratic and socialist populists hope to democratize Hong Kong and maximize its autonomy, the nationalistic populists toe the line of Beijing to retain the central government's "comprehensive jurisdiction" over the territory. As such, a kind of permanent confrontation between the democratic/socialist populists on the one hand, and nationalistic populists on the other hand, would likely persist.

This phenomenon will likely become the most important indicator shaping Hong Kong's social and political stability in the coming decades.

Fourth, the populist politics and political violence in Hong Kong are benefiting the pro-independence movement in Taiwan. Presidential candidate Tsai Ying-wen of the Democratic Progressive Party is enjoying a relatively high degree of popularity. If so, unless President Xi Jinping's think tank ponders a more flexible model of "one country, two systems" for Taiwan in the future, the Hong Kong disturbances in 2019 strengthen the opposition of many Taiwanese people to the PRC gestures of dialogue and negotiation in the short run.

Fifth, and finally, populism in Hong Kong has become a chess game of the US-China trade negotiations. The US is trying to play the Hong Kong card and exert pressure on China to make concessions on trade-related issues. On the other hand, China resists US interfere with Hong Kong affairs. The international politics of diplomacy have heightened in China's foreign relations, as the Hong Kong disturbances and their related populist politics have become an international concern.

In short, populism has not only brought about political violence in Hong Kong, it will also have profound impacts on Beijing-Hong Kong relations from now to 2047, on Beijing-Taipei relations and on the international politics between China and foreign countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion - Populist movements, political violence and Hong Kong's future |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If populism is a term used by social scientists to refer to political movements mobilizing public opinion against the elite rule, it did and does contribute to political violence in Hong Kong. Populism can exist in two different ends of a political spectrum, ranging from left to right.

# data[].attributes.body
Consider implications of daily learnings on the person we become, endorse, or discriminate against.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How do daily habits lead to political violence? | Christiane-Marie Abu Sarah

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting diagram to consider in relation to my previous post about Conovan and The Guardian article.

# data[].attributes.body
Margaret Conovan (1999) speaks of the two faces of populism which are the redemptive and the pragmatic. These two sides of populism allow for an array of ideologies to be sustained through the idea of populism and democracy. Similarly, The Guardian article highlights the prevalence of populism across US politics which includes Sanders, Obama, Warren, Trump, and Harris.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren spoke in a New Hampshire town hall last month, she promised to break up Silicon Valley monopolies and levy a wealth tax on "the Rembrandts and the diamonds" of the super-rich, before quipping: "I'm sick of freeloading billionaires."

Days earlier, the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders had addressed a rally in Concord, 45 miles west. He said his was a campaign that "tells the powerful special interests who control so much of our economic and political life that we will no longer tolerate the greed of Wall Street, corporate America and the billionaire class".

During a road trip through the state days later, the former Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke stopped at a university in Keene to lament an economy that only works for "the very few". "We never had this kind of income and wealth inequality unless you go all the way back to the last Gilded Age," he said.

Much has been said about the unprecedented diversity among Democrats vying to replace Donald Trump in the White House in 2020. But voters in New Hampshire, which will hold the first in the nation primary next year, can be forgiven for feeling they all sound kind of similar.

Reporters on the campaign trail constantly ask Democrats if they self-define as a "socialist" or "capitalist". Yet a better label for several of the frontrunners may be "populist" - at least in the moderate, diluted form in which the term is commonly used in the US.

That reflects a wider populist turn in Democratic politics, born from a realisation that in 2016 it was Trump, a real estate billionaire, who did better than Democrat Hillary Clinton at channeling widespread voter frustration at economic elites.

Now Trump has become emblematic of the swamp he once promised to drain. The president has given tax cuts to America's wealthiest, given his family White House portfolios, stacked his cabinet with friends and donors with a combined net worth estimated to be worth over $4bn, and overseen an administration that some historians argue is the most corrupt America has endured since the 1920s.

"All that is perfect terrain for a leftwing populist to pounce," said Michael Kazin, a professor of history at Georgetown University and the author of a book on American populism.

The movement that spawned the word 'populism'

It is against this backdrop that Democrats are looking to a us-v-them style of politics redolent of the US agrarian revolts of the 1890s - the movement that spawned the word "populism" in the first place.

That was the era when an anti-elitist alliance of impoverished farmers, rail workers and union members briefly formed the Populist party, which called for an end to monopolies, a progressive income tax and government ownership of the railroads, telegraph services and post office.

After briefly threatening to upend America's two-party system, the Populist party collapsed after selecting the Democratic nominee for president, William Jennings Bryan, who lost in 1896. But the movement has been credited with giving rise to a progressive era in Democratic politics that culminated in Franklin D Roosevelt's 1930s New Deal.

The meaning of populism has evolved considerably since then, and scholars today generally accept populism can be deployed by capitalists as well as socialists. Rightwing populists came to the fore in American politics in the mid-2oth century with figures such as the segregationist governor of Alabama, George Wallace, and the Republican anti-communist senator Joseph McCarthy.

What populists across the spectrum have in common is a claim to serve the popular will of ordinary people in their quest to overcome powerful, self-serving elites. Kazin, who edits the leftwing magazine Dissent, said there has long been a rich seam of opposition to entrenched elites in American politics that "has always been there to be tapped" by politicians of all stripes.

Surges in populist rhetoric tend to be prompted by perceived political and economic crises. Kazin argues the current populist wave leads back to the 2008 financial crisis, which has framed American political discourse for more than a decade.

However, Kazin said he could not remember a presidential primary when so many prominent Democrats were running on a leftwing populist agenda - or a presidential contest, as 2020 may turn out to be, when both the Democrat and Republican are nominees are populists. "You're probably not going to have a leading candidate this year - except, perhaps, Joe Biden - who is not going to be talking in pretty strongly populist terms," he said.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Kamala Harris's campaign slogan - 'for the people' - is a nod to her career as San Francisco district attorney, but also a classically populist term. Photograph: Tracy Barbutes/Zuma Wire/Rex/Shutterstock

The populist label

That may be an exaggeration. In addition to Biden, who has not announced his presidential campaign, moderate senators such as Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand have held back from populism.

Others, meanwhile, are probably stretching the definition. When Kamala Harris launched her campaign in Oakland in January, an aide to the California senator told New York magazine she was claiming the mantle of "a new populism".

Her campaign slogan - "for the people" - is a nod to her career as San Francisco district attorney, but also a classically populist term. Yet while her speech referred to "the people" 15 times, it contained none of the sharp condemnation of elites that is also a hallmark of populist discourse. On the contrary, Harris made a point of stressing "our United States of America is not about us versus them".

Even Barack Obama once toyed with the populist label. Reflecting on some of his leftwing policies, Obama openly mused on the idea that he might be a populist, but hedged: "Maybe somebody can pull up in a dictionary quickly the phrase 'populism'."

Had anyone bothered to do so they might have discovered the word is routinely misused. In Europe, it is often used pejoratively to refer to far-right, nationalist politics of leaders such as Italy's Matteo Salvini and Hungary's Viktor Orbán. Many supporters of leftwing radicals such as the UK's Jeremy Corbyn or France's Jean-Luc Mélenchon balk at the populist label, which they argue tarnishes their candidates by association.

In the US, there is perhaps better understanding of the idea that populism can be a political language used by the right or left. But the word has also lost some of its meaning as it increasingly becomes a shorthand for economic redistribution. As a result, no candidate is more routinely referred to as populist than Sanders, but others include Warren and - until he dropped of the race - the Ohio senator Sherrod Brown.

Brown, one of the few politicians to embrace the populist label, dedicated a page on his campaign website to explaining "what populism is - and what it isn't". The page argued that populism "doesn't fan resentments and exploit grievances", a claim that might be disputed by scholars of leftwing populists such as Hugo Chávez - or even the original American populists, like Jennings Bryan .

Membership Event: The new populism: A threat to democracy?

'We're living in another Gilded Age'

Sixteen Democrats have so far formally declared bids for the presidency, and another dozen are criss-crossing the early caucus and primary states to test the waters. They include New York's mayor, Bill de Blasio, who recently stopped by the Strange Brew Tavern in Manchester, for "happy hour with young Democrats".

He told around a dozen party faithfuls gathered around a pool table that his "line" resonating most Iowa and South Carolina was that "there's plenty of money in the country, it is just in the wrong hands". "It don't think it is an accident," he added. "People are fed up."

He later told the Guardian that populism was "very much part of who I am".

"Recently in public discourse somehow populism has been described as a rightwing phenomenon, through a negative prism, when I think there's a very rich history in the United States of progressive populism, centered on economic issues, referencing working people's lives, and that's what we have got to get back to," he said.

De Blasio added he agreed with Warren's proposal to break up technology giants. "I do see an emerging frustration with the technology sector that is about unfettered power. But also connects to the notion of large corporations, unaccountable to the people - just as people felt about Wall Street."

"We're living in another Gilded Age. The income inequality levels today are comparable to the time of the robber barons," he added, arguing that a slew of political advances - anti-trust laws, progressive taxation and limits on corporate money in politics - were born of the populist backlash of the late 19th century.

"Those are all ideas that go back 100 years and more in this country," he said. "Full circle, these ideas are now coming to life in much bolder form today."

That much seemed evident in nearby Exeter, when Warren delighted the crowd, days earlier, with her unabashed attack on America's "ultra millionaires".

Nodding emphatically from a balcony above the stage was Janice, a woman in her 60s in a faded Mickey Mouse T-shirt. She declined to give her last name because she was embarrassed to admit she had voted for Trump in 2016.

"My friend kept saying: 'Trump's for the little people,'" she recalled - stressing that, at the time, she was holding down two jobs and struggling to pay the rent, so did not have time to vet the candidates.

She now believes Trump "talked that way to become president" - and after hearing Warren speak, she felt she'd found a more authentic version of the candidate she had been looking for. "Warren sounds like she's on our side. And it's us v them," she said.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the populist wave is setting the tone for Democratic candidates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren spoke in a New Hampshire town hall last month, she promised to break up Silicon Valley monopolies and levy a wealth tax on "the Rembrandts and the diamonds" of the super-rich, before quipping: "I'm sick of freeloading billionaires."

# data[].attributes.body
For the people? or, only for certain types of people?
This podcast helped solidify my understanding of populism in relation to Trump, Latin America, and Europe. As well as considering the gendering of populism and the idea of a "tough guy that gets things done" and the romanticisation of the hero coming to save a nation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Populism, Thinking Allowed - BBC Radio 4

# data[].attributes.body
The ambiguity of ‘who are the people’, that populism gives power to, is taken advantage of by politicians in the UK and around the world. The left is typically seen to give power to the working class by “championing greater inclusion”, while the right uses the same format to reinforce class boundaries. The majority of the population which is supposedly represented by both parties, however in very contrasting ways, has a very small amount of power in actually defining what they want. This is how both parties can use a vague briefing of populism to amplify their voice. Peter Bloom notes in this article the importance of less focus on critiquing those at the top and an improvement in the definition of “who the “people” are what they can achieve together”. British politicians focus a lot of energy into defining themselves as the party of the people without actually following through on the changes which are needed to better the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For the many, not the...who? EPA/Andy Rain

Populism is seemingly sweeping the globe, threatening the established status quo. Optimistically, it promises to bring about much needed change to what appears to be a corrupt political and economic order. More ominously, it is dangerously promoting racism, sexism, xenophobia, jingoism, and attacking basic human rights around the world.

It is therefore important not to blithely conflate different populist and grassroots movements. The left-wing movements championing greater inclusion are plainly very different from right-wing ones keen on reinforced or increased exclusion. But despite their profound differences, they have one thing in common: they claim to represent a supposedly victimised popular majority, "the people".

Exactly who these "people" actually are is far from clear. All sides are embroiled in an ongoing struggle to determine how to define which populations count and which do not. Lost in the public outcry regarding populism is a deeper conflict over who matters socially, economically and politically.

In the wake of the recent upsurge in populist movements, there have been a number of attempts to better define what the word "populism" actually describes. Perhaps the best and clearest recent definition comes from Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell, who write that populism:

Pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous 'others' who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice.

But populism doesn't just appeal with an "us-versus-them" attack on elites; it also offers its supporters a passionate sense of solidarity. It mobilises individuals and communities under a common identity, one that can be socially invigorating and politically empowering. Populism is therefore an opportunity to dramatically redefine the political landscape, and to fill the relatively vacuous term of the "people" with any of various new meanings.

But just as some ideas of "the people" are exclusionary, others are radically inclusive.

Different demands for different people

The late political theorist Ernesto Laclau declared that at its roots, populism is linked to a specific politics - that even the most seemingly mundane protest can reveal the limitations of an existing system and the potential to establish something radically different. If those in power cannot meet these demands, they and the values they represent will suddenly look vulnerable and replaceable.

While Laclau was writing about the general logic of populism, the content of this demand matters greatly for the specifics of these fraught times. Calls for greater democracy, for instance, focus popular attention on democratising political and economic organisations. By contrast, fearmongering against immigrants (to take one example) seeks to restrict political power and economic benefits, making them the preserve of a chosen population.

EPA/Tracie Van Auken

The ideology driving these demands and identities is therefore of paramount importance. The resurgence of authoritarian and fascist rhetoric speaks to the dangers of demagogues playing on the dissatisfaction of the majority for the creation of a more repressive and less equitable social order. However, the infusing of progressive ideals with a populist spirit can catalyse movements and identities that broaden politics to reach previously invisible groups.

Narrow and broad

Populism has the radical potential to foster not just exclusion, but greater inclusion. By instilling a shared sense of injustice, inclusive movements can alert their followers to the plight of other people whom they've been socialised to ignore, forging bonds first of empathy and then of solidarity. This in turn means their preferred definition of "the people" can be expanded to include more and more citizens.

In recent years, a number of scholars and commentators have challenged how far the label "populism" should be extended. They question whether figures such as Jeremy Corbyn should even be called populists, arguing that failing to make the distinction between exclusive and inclusive movements reflects lazy and even disingenuous thinking. When any challenge to "sensible", "moderate" politics is derided as populist regardless of its stated aims, the political dominance of the establishment is consolidated.

This argument for a tighter definition of populism is prudent, but inclusion-minded movements shouldn't be let off the hook entirely. If movements on the left remain fixated on bringing down maligned or incompetent elites, they will tie themselves to a dangerous politics of sovereignty, one where the overriding goal is simply to take power. This is a very narrow vision. Instead, the imperative must be to find new ways to more equitably organise society and share power.

Ultimately, these sorts of political movements should always be thought of as beginnings, not ends in themselves. Radical, inclusive politics should be much more than a critique of those at the top; it needs to be an ongoing debate over who "we" are and how "we" can be empowered. In an age when the forces of xenophobia and nativism are on the rise, these concerns are perhaps more timely than ever before. Modern politics isn't just a struggle between left-populists and right-populists: it's a race to define and expand who the "people" are and what they can achieve together.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We live in a populist age - but who are 'the people'?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Populism is seemingly sweeping the globe, threatening the established status quo. Optimistically, it promises to bring about much needed change to what appears to be a corrupt political and economic order. More ominously, it is dangerously promoting racism, sexism, xenophobia, jingoism, and attacking basic human rights around the world.

# data[].attributes.body
The documentary "We are all neighbours" showed the impact of the civil war on a community in a village in Bosnia. In our tutorial it was brought up that there is never any explicit violence shown and only the sounds of violence in the distance which you can hear in the background of clips. This documentary showed how violence impacts daily life and relationships even if the violence is never against you. I then found this article which highlights the impact of the prevalence of gun violence in the US and the detrimental effect this can have on someone's mental health. I thought, sadly, that this suits this week's discussion perfectly as the violence has a significant impact on people who can be very removed from the physical act of violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On an otherwise mundane Sunday, my partner and I found ourselves shopping at a chain mattress store in our Brooklyn neighborhood. We were the only two shoppers in the store when a man walked in, his right hand concealed beneath his jacket. He walked with purpose, passed the rows of mattresses to the back of the store, and asked frantically, "are you alone in here?"

I panicked. Wasn't this exactly how it happens? Someone walks into an ordinary store (or theater, or school, or place of worship) and opens fire at random? I envisioned myself seeking refuge beneath the naked mattresses. Fight or flight kicked in, and I abruptly left the store in a panic. Afterward, I was both physically and emotionally drained. But there was no gun. There was no mass shooting.

I was just a pre-teen when 13 people were shot dead and 21 more were injured at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. At the time, it was the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Since then, the United States has experienced an insurgence of mass shootings-we experience 25 times the gun homicide rate of other high-income nations, and the U.S. accounts for 42 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns. The United States has experienced 108 mass shootings since 1982, with the top three deadliest having occurred within the last two years.

Gun violence is far from a new concept for Americans, but because of the scale and typically arbitrary targets involved in mass shootings, there are no longer spaces where we feel safe-and this is having a profound effect on our mental health as a population. The impact of these repetitive attacks is magnified by the constant consumption of news and social media, particularly evident in younger generations. Many people live in fear of the next mass shooting- and this is taking a detrimental toll on the mental health and wellbeing of Americans today.

When discussing the issue of mass gun violence in America, we most often hear statistics of fatalities and physical injuries. But what the barrage of mass gun violence has done to our sense of security is detrimental-not only to those who have come in direct contact with it, but to those like me who have internalized the secondary trauma of mass shootings experienced through television and social media. While the psychological effects of large-scale acts of violence most acutely affect those directly involved, there is evidence to suggest that individuals develop similar symptoms- such as post-traumatic stress disorder- without having witnessed first-hand trauma. According to the American Psychological Association, 75 percent of school-aged individuals cite mass shootings in general as a major source of stress while 74 percent of their parents cite school shootings in particular as a significant source of stress. And this stress might not be just a fleeting feeling.

There is strong scientific evidence that chronic stress causes epigenetic changes, which have lasting effects on our health and behavior by altering the way our genes function. Chronic stress acts differently on the body than acute trauma: it accumulates over time and silently alters our DNA. Long-term exposure to stress has been linked with the development of mood disorders, depression, anxiety, and other persistent illnesses.

But it doesn't stop there. Epigenetic changes to our genes are likely passed to our children, in the same way we inherit hair or eye color. Studies have shown that during pregnancy, a mother's bodily responses to stress are passed on to the fetus, affecting a child's brain development and their own ability to respond to stress after they are born.

In order to better understand and address the threat of mass gun violence to our mental health, we must have the opportunity to acquire data. Conservatives against gun control may argue that violent crime is down, and that the primary safety concerns with respect to guns are suicide and illegally owned handguns, but they overlook the widespread psychological damage caused by gun violence that affects nearly all Americans. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has made it nearly impossible for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct research on the health implications of gun violence. The 1996 Dickey Amendment -the product of NRA demands-states that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Rather than risk loss of funding, the CDC stopped conducting research on gun violence and health, altogether.

Without the participation of federally-funded organizations like the CDC, we must call upon philanthropists and charitable organizations to fund small research initiatives. With less bureaucracy to navigate, these privately funded programs can take more risks and often can make a greater impact in a shorter period of time. Our country desperately needs more effective gun regulations, but we need the data to prove it.

I know that I am not alone in playing out those worst-case scenarios involving myself as a random target of mass gun violence. A few months ago, thousands of concert-goers in Central Park turned into a dangerous stampede after a loud bang was erroneously perceived as a gunshot. The shift has been gradual, but our generation now exists in a heightened state of stress and anxiety, having profound long-term effects on us and generations to come.
Emily Schenkein is a first-year MPH student in Sociomedical Sciences. If you would like to contribute to Columbia Mailman Student Voices, please send a three to five sentence pitch to mailmancomm@columbia.edu.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mass Gun Violence is Affecting My Mental Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On an otherwise mundane Sunday, my partner and I found ourselves shopping at a chain mattress store in our Brooklyn neighborhood. We were the only two shoppers in the store when a man walked in, his right hand concealed beneath his jacket.

# data[].attributes.body
This piece highlights that terrorism is "integrated with other sub-state entities, such as criminal organisations and are gradually assuming a measure of control and identity with national governments." which leaves is a reminder of suicide bombers and the belief that the only way to gain pride and respect is through suicide bombing. This environment which harnesses individual's vulnerabilities to act out political events doesn't leave the government exempt from criticism. As an environment which encourages suicide bombers is a product of political situation at play, then blame can be shifted to the people holding power as little is being done to disband these conditions of living.

# data[].attributes.body
“When we explain an act as the product of a particular history and particular social circumstances we give its perpetrators some of their humanity back.”(Hage, 2003:86-7) . Devji depicts how ordinary the London suicide bombers are as one of the men changes their trousers prior to the bombing, and this is further explained by someone who knew the man and stated that he took care of his appearance. Describing the suicide bombers as ordinary can be shocking to many people who only see the devastation caused but it would be inaccurate to suggest otherwise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Keywords

Refugee Camp Military Activist Suicide Bombing Suicide Plan Israel Defense Force

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Ordinary People' and 'Death Work': Palestinian Suicide Bombers as Victimizers and Victims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Refugee Camp Military Activist Suicide Bombing Suicide Plan Israel Defense Force These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves. This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

# data[].attributes.body
Hage (2003) outlined the contradictions of condemning suicide bombers when the response is coming from a very privellegd Western viewpoint. Without knowing the environment and conditions that a potential suicide bomber has been brought up in, it is challenging to give a response that considers the circumstanecs which leave suicide bombing as the only form of gaining control of life.  Trumps' description of suicide bombers as "losers" emphasis the lack of understanding to the conditions of life which lead to suicide becoming the respectable social norm in different cultures.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"I extend my deepest condolences to those so terribly injured... and to the so many families of the victims. We stand in absolute solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom.

"So many young beautiful and innocent people living and enjoying their lives, murdered... by evil losers in life," he said on Tuesday, speaking from the occupied West Bank.

Andy Burnham: Manchester bombing an 'evil act'

"I won't call them monsters because they would like that term. They would think that's a great name. I will call them from now on losers because that's what they are, they're losers. And we'lll have more of them. But they're losers, just remember that."

"The terrorists and extremists and those who give them aid and comfort must be driven out from our society forever," he added, calling on the international community to "protect human life."

Several children are among the 22 killed and 59 injured at an Ariana Grande pop concert in Manchester Arena on Monday evening after a suicide bomber detonated an improvised explosive device (IED), police said. "

Manchester explosion in pictures
Show all 37

Major investigations are still underway and security has been tightened in other UK cities following the attack - the worst on British soil since the 7/7 London bombings which killed 52 innocent people.

Prime Minister Theresa May has called an emergency Cobra meeting in Downing Street, and all political parties suspended general election campaigning as a mark of respect.

Mr Trump's comments on Tuesday morning came from Bethlehem, where he is visiting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as part of his maiden foreign trip since taking office in January.

"This is what I've spent the last few days talking about during my first trip overseas. Our society can have no tolerance for this continuation of bloodshed. We cannot stand a moment longer for the slaughter of innocent people," the president added.

The Palestinian leader also offered his condolences to the "British prime minister and the British people."

Donald Trump emphasises the need to 'obliterate' terrorism in Bethlehem speech

Other world leaders expressed their sympathies to the UK, noting the particularly barbaric nature of the attack in targeting young people.

"This incident, this attack, is especially vile, especially criminal, especially horrific because it appears to have been deliberately directed at teenagers," Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said.

"This is an attack on innocents. Surely there is no crime more reprehensible than the murder of children."

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted: "Pained by the attack in Manchester. We strongly condemn it. Our thoughts are with the families of the deceased & prayers with the injured."

In Japan a government spokesman said: "If this is a terrorist attack, such abhorrent acts of terrorism cannot be justified for any reason, and Japan firmly condemns such an act of terrorism."

"Canadians are shocked by the news of the horrific attack in Manchester tonight. Please keep the victims & their families in your thoughts," Canadian leader Justin Trudeau also tweeted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump brands suicide bomber behind Manchester attack as 'evil loser'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"I extend my deepest condolences to those so terribly injured... and to the so many families of the victims. We stand in absolute solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom. "So many young beautiful and innocent people living and enjoying their lives, murdered...

# data[].attributes.body
I watched the Egyptian Revolution The Square documentary about Tahrir sqaure and the power that the pople protesting in that square gained from taking up the physical space which symbolises the heart of Egypt. The protesting is still in action and sadly the people are paying the price instead of receiving the social and economic rights they have been waiting for. Protests are usually the exception, instead of the norm, but the past 9 years of protests have become a part of the everyday life for the people of Cairo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Egyptian security forces have used teargas, batons, birdshot and on at least one occasion live ammunition, and arrested hundreds of protestors and bystanders to disperse rare scattered demonstrations over several days, Amnesty International said today.

Sources told Amnesty International that security forces killed two men, while hundreds were subjected to arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances. At least 496 individuals are currently in detention as a result of the crackdown, according to a coalition of human rights lawyers, pending investigations on flawed "terrorism" and protest related charges.

The fact that these protesters took to the streets while knowing the very high risk to their lives and safety they were taking shows how desperate they were to demand their economic and social rights.

Philip Luther

The organization interviewed eyewitnesses, lawyers and reviewed video evidence of the protests, which erupted across several poor rural and urban communities across the country primarily against housing demolitions in Egypt in mid-September.

"The fact that these protesters took to the streets while knowing the very high risk to their lives and safety they were taking shows how desperate they were to demand their economic and social rights. Videos showing policemen firing birdshot at fleeing people indicate a total disregard for international policing standards. We are also gravely concerned about the deployment of officers with rifles, which are generally unsuitable for policing protests and presents an undue risk to human life. The authorities must urgently investigate the death of the two men," said Philip Luther, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Research and Advocacy Director.

"Hundreds of people are now in detention, including many who were not even involved in the protests. The authorities have yet again resorted to their usual tactics of violence and mass arrests to send a clear message that no form of protest will betolerated. We call on the authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all those detained solely for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly."

Over the last two weeks in September, small and scattered protests took place in several villages, towns and poor urban communities in Egypt, where protesters took to the streets against the government's policy of demolishing unregistered houses and a law on reconciliation for unregistered houses. Some protestors also voiced chants against president Abdelfattah al-Sisi and protested the killing of one man in Luxor. The cabinet's spokesman stated on 26 September that there had been protests in a village in Giza in relation to economic concerns. In addition, former army contractor Mohamed Ali had once again called for protests against president Abdelfatah al-Sisi on 20 September. Last year protestors had taken to the streets en masse on the same day but the authorities crushed the protests using force and arrested thousands.
Use of unnecessary force
Amnesty International spoke to some individuals who had been briefly detained, families of current detainees, and lawyers who represented hundreds of defendants, as well as reviewing documentation by local human rights organizations and analyzing video evidence.

The evidence shows that security forces fired birdshot (commonly referred to as khartoush), tear gas and, in at least one instance, live rounds at protesters, leading to injuries.

The authorities have yet again resorted to their usual tactics of violence and mass arrests to send a clear message that no form of protest will betolerated.

Philip Luther

According to information received by Amnesty International, one man, Samy Beshir, was killed in al-Ayat, to the south of Cairo, on 25 September, after being shot by security forces. A medical source confirmed to German media that the man had died from injuries by birdshot, however security forces denied using birdshot to disperse this protest. Another man, Owais al-Rawi was killed on 30 September, after being shot at his home during a police raid according to sources.

Videos of seven protests that took place in Giza, Dumiyat, Minya, Qena and Luxor show that protests were mostly peaceful, though in some instances, protesters damaged and burned police cars or threw stones at security forces. Egyptian media reported that two policemen were wounded in al-Basateen, Cairo.

In a video filmed on 23 September in Kafr Qandil village to the south of Cairo, gunshots can be heard and two policemen are seen carrying guns. One carries a Kalashnikov, which only fires live rounds, and the other a shotgun which can fire non-lethal rounds. No protesters were seen with firearms. The use of firearms by law enforcement is only lawful where doing so is strictly necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury. They are not suitable for public order policing, such as the policing of protests. Furthermore, weapons that fire numerous bullets at quick successions such as a Kalashnikov are completely inappropriate for policing assemblies.

In another video verified dated to 25 September in Dumiyat, to the north of Cairo, policemen are seen attacking unarmed protestors with batons and shooting shotguns at them as they are running away. Birdshot is only fired from shotguns, and not other police firearms.

In four verified videos, policemen are seen attacking protestors and firing birdshot from the top of armored vehicles at running protesters and tear gas on 30 September in Luxor, in the south of Egypt as protestors held a public funeral for Owais al-Rawi.

Several of those detained during and after protests had wounds from birdshot including in their backs.

Standard police shotguns can fire a variety of ammunition. Some varieties, like kinetic impact projectiles, are acceptable for use in very specific circumstances. But birdshot should never be used. Like the pellets in air rifles, birdshot is also used in hunting. However, instead of a single projectile, a cartridge of birdshot contains dozens of bb sized (3mm diameter) balls, that cause distinctive, and potentially deadly, injuries in a spray pattern. Birdshot wounds near vital organs in the face and torso are particularly dangerous.

Egyptian security forces have a history of firing birdshot at peaceful protesters including at close range, resulting in fatalities and serious injuries like ruptures of the eye globe. Due to their multiple projectiles there is also a high risk that birdshot will injure bystanders close by to the person being aimed at by the police.

According to international law enforcement standards, police may use force only when strictly necessary and proportionate, and only to the extent strictly required for the performance of their duty. Police must apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force. If the use of force is unavoidable, they must use it with restraint and in proportion to the seriousness of the law enforcement objective.
Arbitrary arrests and detention
Between 10 and 29 September, Egyptian police arrested between 571 and 735 individuals in 17 governorates, according to information collected by the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, Defense and the Egyptian Front for Human Rights. Lawyers told Amnesty International that those arrested are aged between 11 and 65 years old. Three women are among those arrested.

We call on the authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all those detained solely for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Philip Luther

In the lead up to one-year anniversary of anti-government protests on 20 September, police forces in Cairo stopped individuals walking in the streets, particularly in downtown Cairo, and ordered them to hand over their phones for police to search. Some of those stopped during these random searches were released after being detained and questioned by security forces over the content of their phones or personal lives.

One man who was stopped by policemen in downtown Cairo told Amnesty International that when he refused to unlock his phone, they held him in a police car, insulted him, and threatened him with detention and prosecution, before letting him go. Others, including bystanders, were arrested from or near protests, and some people were arrested from their homes over comments they made on their social media accounts calling for protests or criticizing the government's policies in relation to the demolition of houses.

According to lawyers and families, those arrested were taken to various police stations, Central Security Forces camps, and some were taken to locations controlled by the National Security Agency, a specialized police force. For periods between one and ten days, security forces denied having them in custody and did not allow them to communicate with the outside world.

Lawyers of defendants told Amnesty International that some defendants reported to prosecutors being subjected to electric shocks, beaten, threatened with prolonged detention and insulted by security forces. This constitutes torture or other ill-treatment. Detainees were then taken to the Cairo headquarters of the Supreme State Security Prosecution (SSSP), a special branch of the Public Prosecution responsible for prosecuting cases of terrorism and national security.

At least 115 remain detained in undisclosed locations, according to information gathered by the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms. Lawyers told Amnesty International that the security forces claimed to prosecutors that all arrests took place on 20 September, regardless of whether defendants were actually arrested before or after that date.

According to lawyers, prosecutors questioned defendants about their participation in the protests, their social media posts, their political beliefs and their positions in relation to the housing demolitions and the buildings reconciliation law. Prosecutors did not allow lawyers or defendants to examine the National Security Agency (NSA) investigations files against them and did not present any other evidence against most of them, solely relying on the NSA investigations files.

Lawyers said that prosecutors told defendants they were being investigated on various charges, including "membership in a terrorist group", "misusing social media", "spreading false news", "funding a terrorist group", "participating in illegal assemblies" and "inciting illegal protests". Prosecutors ordered that all those interrogated be detained for 15 days.

On 27 September, the Public Prosecution ordered the release of 68 detained children in relation to the recent "riots". According to information collected by Amnesty International, only children under the age of 15 were released while older children continue to be detained.

The Public Prosecution announced continuing investigations in the case, but did not provide further information on the number of people detained or charges they are being investigated for.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
egyptian security forces; teargas; batons; birdshot; live ammunition; arrested hundreds; protestors; demonstrations;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Egypt: Rare protests met with unlawful force and mass arrests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Egyptian security forces have used teargas, batons, birdshot and on at least one occasion live ammunition, and arrested hundreds of protestors and bystanders to disperse rare scattered demonstrations over several days, Amnesty International said today. Sources told Amnesty International that security forces killed two men, while hundreds were subjected to arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances.

# data[].attributes.body
Looking at structural violence locally it is evident that systematically the UK is part of the problem as black men are five times more likely than white men to be stopped and searched by police in England and Wales. 45% of children in BAME families live in poverty by comparison to 26% of children in white British families. These facts mirror the symptoms of structural violence stated by Paul Farmer (2004).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's October 2019, and bestselling authors Douglas Murray and Lionel Shriver take to the stage for an event at Central Hall Westminster. Part of the way through their talk, Murray begins to rail against the 2016 British Black Lives Matter protests and what he sees as "the globalisation of a specific American racial issue".

"It was surreal to see Black Lives Matter marching down Oxford Street ... with their hands in the air, doing the Black Lives Matter thing of 'hands up, don't shoot', all escorted by unarmed British police officers,"Murray exclaims. The audience erupts with laughter at the punchline, satiated by the clear ridiculousness of Britons marching for a problem that doesn't concern them.

British solidarity with American victims of racial violence didn't seem so funny when thousands of protesters recently gathered in Hyde Park in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. Despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the crowd was much larger than expected - and much, much larger than in 2016. The visceral horror of George Floyd's slow public execution under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer has cut through the global consciousness in a way not seen since the police attack on Rodney King in 1991. BLM demonstrations have taken place in public squares from Paris to Amsterdam to Auckland.

Yet in Britain, protesters still face criticism for supporting an issue that has supposedly nothing to do with this country. The idea that the issues BLM are protesting about are specific only to the US is farcical, as though race or policing are not global phenomena by their very nature; as though we don't see similar dynamics in Brazil, or Australia, or even Britain.

Of course, there are certain force multipliers in the US that increase the scale of its problems; we do not have prisons the size of small towns or police officers walking around with AR-15s in Britain. But George Floyd showed that police do not need guns to take life. Floyd's chilling final cries of "I can't breathe" are not only the same words uttered by Eric Garner as he was being chocked by police officers in New York in 2014, but also by Jimmy Mubenga who in 2010 died on a plane on a Heathrow runway while being restrained by three immigration officers. In 2017, 20-year-old Rashan Charles also lost his life, this time in Hackney, east London, after being restrained by a police officer and choking on a package of caffeine and paracetamol in his mouth. That same year, another young black man, 25-year-old father Edson Da Costa, died in very similar circumstances to Charles, just down the road in Newham. The inquests held into both Charles' and Da Costa's deaths ultimately cleared the arresting officers of responsibility. We could also discuss Sarah Reed, or Sheku Bayoh - the names go on and on.

The last time a police officer was successfully prosecuted in the UK concerning the death of somebody in custody was in 1969, when the Beatles were not only all alive, but still together. That year, two Leeds city police officers were responsible for causing the death of David Oluwale, a homeless British-Nigerian man who they had repeatedly targeted in an attempt to drive him out of the city. The officers had taken to abusing Oluwale whenever he was spotted, and famously wrote "Wog" by his nationality on his arrest sheet. When Oluwale died after being in their custody, they faced charges of manslaughter. During the trial these charges were dropped to assault. The police officers were convicted and sentenced to just three years in prison. Half a century later, there has not been a single successful prosecution for anyone who died in police custody since.

Though the numbers of deaths following police contact are thankfully not as bad in the UK as in the US, we should be anything but complacent when it comes to our own structural problems with racism or policing. Institutional racismexists at every level of our criminal justice system, from who gets stopped and searched, to who gets arrested, to who gets charged, to who gets convicted.

In 2017, the Lammy Review showed that while black people comprise 3% of the overall population in England and Wales, they currently make up 12% of its prison population. The percentage of black people in Britain who are in prison is higher than the corresponding figure in the US. We're locking more of our black people away than the big, bad USA. The numbers only get worse when you consider younger inmates specifically: 48% of under-18s in custody are from black or other ethnic minority backgrounds.

These stories are already known to the new generation driving forward this latest wave of Black Lives Matter protests in the UK. Rather than dismiss them as cheap American imitators, we should listen to them and use this moment not only to empathise with African-Americans but look at our own systems of policing, imprisonment and immigration detention in Britain.

* Dr Kojo Koram teaches at the School of Law at Birkbeck College, University of London
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Systemic racism and police brutality are British problems too | Kojo Koram

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's October 2019, and bestselling authors Douglas Murray and Lionel Shriver take to the stage for an event at Central Hall Westminster. Part of the way through their talk, Murray begins to rail against the 2016 British Black Lives Matter protests and what he sees as "the globalisation of a specific American racial issue".

# data[].attributes.body
American Dirt follows the story of a mother and son who travel to the US to escape violence in their community. American Dirt highlights the horrific experiences people go through in order to enter the US, seeking asylum and leaving behind their lives in order to find safety. Border control can an attempt to cross the border can be the death of many people which emphasis the desperation to make such a dangerous journey. As we have been taught in the lectures, borders are a site of ritual and reinforcement of binaries between those who have the right to travel and those who don't. The book is really fascinating in grasping an understanding of what forces people to flee their home.

# data[].attributes.body
Recently I watched the film Just Mercy which highlighted the injustice within the American justice system. Although the film is set in the 1980's, it is still incredibly relevant as the unequal policing of black people still takes place everyday in the US as well as the UK.

# data[].attributes.body
This weeks lecture illustrated how violence does not have to be physical. Life on the Gaza strip in Palestine is incredibly violent in nature and violent in the policing of people. The environment which has emerged through years of corruption and war, as well as now a pandemic, leaves structural violence as the omnipresent oppression for 1.9 million people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Structural violence in the era of a new pandemic: the case of the Gaza Strip

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the world is consumed by the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it should be of no surprise that epidemics (and indeed, pandemics) are disproportionately violent to populations burdened by poverty, military occupation, discrimination, and institutionalised oppression.

# data[].attributes.body
Khosravi discusses the ways in which physical borders reinforce the borders within a society, this is an interview has been very insightful after our lecture which discussed Khosravi's comments about the making and breaking of a person. The way someone dresses, looks, talks, and the documents you hold are the main determinants of how you are treated at a border check.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shahram Khosravi on the pandemic and borders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In April, WAIT researcher Shahram Khosravi was interviewed about the pandemic and borders as part of a series of conversations called Four Rooms.

# data[].attributes.body
At what stage of Westernization are we?
An interesting question presented in Hakan Arslanbenzer's article in relation to Turkey and the process of Americanism, which mirrors "The romance of resistance" by Lila Abu-Lughod.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Culture, material or nonmaterial, has always evolved. Social scientists, especially cultural historians, social anthropologists, sociologists and social psychologists, have tried to solve the mystery of cultural change for more than a century. Since there is no simple or one-dimensional explanation for a considerable change in the culture of a certain social group, theories continue to vie for dominance.

The most famous and effective theory of cultural change is the modernization theory, which depends on an optimistic idea of progression and a happy trust in the superiority of Western civilization. According to modernization theory, linear development is the fate of humanity and every society is in a race with others. Therefore, there are well-developed countries, semi-developed countries and the remaining under-developed ones, which constitute the majority of the world. Very American in its soul, the modernization theory obviously gives the U.S. the authority necessary to help other nations develop enough to buy American goods and services.

Developmentalism and modernization theory have been scrutinized more frequently than ever since the early 1970s, which has an elective affinity with the famous oil crisis revealing the high need of the developed West for the raw energy materials of the under-developed East. However, there have been other studies showing the idea of linear progress did not reflect the whole truth of the so-called "under-developed" nations.

As for Turkey, Westernization has been one of the main problems of both the social sciences and public administration in the whole modern era, which explains why social psychologists and sociologists dealt so much with the effect of material modernization on cultural changes. One particular social psychologist, namely professor Mümtaz Turhan, has been cited as the highest authority for social studies on cultural change. According to Turhan, a society cannot adopt another society's culture as a whole unless it is completely occupied and assimilated by that other society. Two of his main theses or questions have survived for decades. One is the question why couldn't Turkey be Westernized? The second is a more complex one: At what stage of Westernization are we?
Life and studies
Turhan was born in the eastern province of Erzurum in 1908, the year of the Second Constitution was proclaimed in the Ottoman Empire. His family moved to central Kayseri province because of the Russian invasion during World War I. So, he was first schooled in Kayseri before he enrolled at high schools in the northwestern province of Bursa and the capital Ankara. Turhan later enrolled at the philosophy department of Istanbul University. After his graduation, he won a state scholarship and visited Berlin and Frankfurt for further studies in applied psychology. He received his Ph.D. degree in psychology in 1934 in Germany.

After seven years of studies, Turhan returned to Istanbul in 1935 to work as a research assistant at the Experimental Psychology Department of Istanbul University. He became an assistant professor in 1939 by submitting an interesting thesis on the interpretation of mimics of people, which depended on the Gestalt psychology he learned during his studies in Germany. According to the Gestalt approach, the perception of a particular element depends on the structural integrity determining that particular element.

Turhan received a second Ph.D. degree in social psychology discipline at Cambridge University. After World War II in 1950, he became a full professor at Istanbul University. He became the chairman of the Applied Psychology Department in 1952 and founded and chaired the Institute for Applied Psychology 10 years later.

Turhan studied the structure of cultural change of a certain Erzurum village for his doctoral thesis in Cambridge, which depended on his observations and notes he took in summer holidays he spent at that village from 1936 to 1942. He wrote his masterpiece, namely "Kültür Değişmeleri" ("Cultural Changes") by using the manuscript of his second Ph.D. thesis.
Cultural change
According to Turhan's findings in "Kültür Değişmeleri," material changes in a certain social group did not necessarily determine cultural change. Material changes in an Erzurum village couldn't stimulate a considerable change in the mindset of the people of the same village. Turhan found that education wasn't a differentiating factor of the culture of one village from another, while both remained unchanged when assessed in the framework of Westernization.

Turhan also discussed the general portrait of Westernization in Turkey since the early 18th century. He suggested that material changes never guarantee changes in the culture or mindset of the people. There is no single way for cultural change to take place, and Turkish culture resisted such change because of an inferiority complex that yielded material under development for centuries.

Turhan's final argument suggests that if Turkey seeks to become Westernized, it should change its higher culture and raise more scientists, artists and intellectuals, who would educate people, and sufficient public administrators, who in turn would help the real progress of the country. The cultural change sought cannot be reached by only material or simple institutional adoptions but a country should create the necessary personnel for such a change.

Was Turhan right? Though a superficial portrait essay like this is not the right place to make a final decision, we can easily say that Turkey has raised enough personnel to compete in the race among the nations since Turhan made his arguments. However, Turkish culture continues to resist Western culture. There has to be another explanation for this resistance against the adoption of Western culture from that presented by Turhan's cultural change thesis.

Turhan founded, help to found, chaired or worked as a member of many associations and institutions in the areas of culture, psychology, anthropology and more. He represented Turkey at the U.N. Social Committee between 1949 and 1951.

Turhan died on Jan. 1, 1969, in Istanbul and his final resting place is at the Zincirlikuyu Cemetery. The Social Sciences High School in Istanbul carries his name.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mümtaz Turhan: Explaining change and resistance in culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Culture, material or nonmaterial, has always evolved. Social scientists, especially cultural historians, social anthropologists, sociologists and social psychologists, have tried to solve the mystery of cultural change for more than a century. Since there is no simple or one-dimensional explanation for a considerable change in the culture of a certain social group, theories continue to vie for dominance.

# data[].attributes.body
Han notes how the community in a low-income area is caught between the gangs and the police, there is fight for who to abide by and who can be trusted. With the recent regression of covid-19 restrictions being implemented across the UK to varying extents, it is evident that there is a similar weigh up being made by the citizens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Police are set to carry out spot checks on people self-isolating, as tough new fines come into force for those who break the rules.

From today, people across England will be legally required to self-isolate if they test positive for coronavirus or are contacted by the test and trace service.

If they do not, they risk being hit with new fines starting at £1,000 and increasing up to £10,000 for repeat offenders or serious breaches.
Live updates on coronavirus from UK and around world
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) also said those who test positive for COVID-19 will be fined if they knowingly provide false information about close contacts to the test and trace service.

The DHSC said that police will check compliance in the highest incidence areas and in high-risk groups based on "local intelligence".

High profile and "egregious" cases of non-compliance will be investigated and prosecuted while action will be taken on tip-offs from "third parties" about people who have tested positive but are not self-isolating, the DHSC added.

But people on low incomes who cannot work from home and have lost income as a result will also be eligible for a new £500 test and trace support payment, it added.

Meanwhile, three more council areas in South Wales will go into local lockdown from 6pm, the Welsh government has announced.

Neath Port Talbot, Torfaen and the Vale of Glamorgan will be covered by the restrictions, which mean people will not be able to enter or leave the areas without a reasonable excuse.

They will not be able to meet indoors with anyone they do not live with, with extended households suspended.

Restrictions are already in place in Cardiff, Swansea, Llanelli, Blaenau Gwent, Bridgend, Caerphilly, Merthyr Tydfil, Newport, and Rhondda Cynon Taf.

It comes after bans on households mixing came into force in Wigan, Stockport, Blackpool and Leeds on Saturday, while stricter rules are already in force across large swathes of northwest England, West Yorkshire, the North East and the Midlands, as well as parts of west Scotland.

The new restrictions in three areas of Wales mean an estimated 17.8 million people across the UK will be living under additional coronavirus measures by Monday evening, on top of those announced by Boris Johnson.

However, the prime minister faces a Commons defeat on Wednesday as Tory rebels continue to press the government to give MPs a chance to vote on coronavirus measures before they come into force.

Steve Baker, a former Brexit minister, who is among a group of around 40 Tory MPs bidding to alter legislation, urged Mr Johnson to share "the burden of decision on these measures" with MPs.

Mr Baker explained the effort is "all about MPs having a vote on the government's policy before it comes into force and takes away people's civil liberties".

He told Sky News' Sophy Ridge on Sunday show: "We're in an environment where you really can't know whether you're a criminal or not with this much law coming into force and changing so fast.

"And that's why I have said this is not a fit environment for a free people."

The government said that, as of 9am on Sunday, there had been a further 5,693 lab-confirmed cases of coronavirus in the UK. A further 17 people had died within 28 days of testing positive for COVID-19 as of Sunday.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock said the government will "not hesitate" to introduce further measures if case numbers continue to rise.
:: Subscribe to the All Out Politics podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker
The government is also under pressure to guarantee young people are not confined to their halls of residence over the festive period because of COVID-19 outbreaks on campuses.

Thousands of students are currently self-isolating in their rooms following a surge in cases at institutions including Glasgow, Manchester Metropolitan and Edinburgh Napier.

Students in Scotland have been told they can return home from university accommodation on a long-term basis, as long as they follow rules on self-isolating.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coronavirus: Spot checks and tip-offs as police target lockdown rule breakers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Police are set to carry out spot checks on people self-isolating, as tough new fines come into force for those who break the rules. From today, people across England will be legally required to self-isolate if they test positive for coronavirus or are contacted by the test and trace service.

# data[].attributes.body
Hirch's article and David Olusoga's documentary show how xenophobia in Britain is entirely focused on black people and in favour of white immigration. Hirch states that “the less visibly “other”” is deemed to be unproblematic despite having the same effect as black immigrants on the UK economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voices

These laws have been racialised since their inception, argues Afua Hirsch. There's a reason only some nationalities are seen as unthreatening to British identity

Friday 24 April 2020 16:53

A

conversation that has stayed with me came after the Brexit vote in 2016, when a French friend, who is white, told me of her anxiety at the outcome. There were already signs of the mounting xenophobia against foreigners of all descriptions that was to come in the aftermath of the referendum. "It's like people are seeing us as immigrants!" she said with disgust. "As if we don't belong here."

My immediate thought was, "welcome". I'm not an immigrant but I have always been seen as one. The response to any perceived transgression I make towards a public person or policy is frequently: "If you don't like it here, then leave." White immigrants, and especially those from western Europe, had on the whole never before felt as if this prejudice applied to them, because "immigration" - as a contentious political issue - has never been about people coming from other countries, and it's never been about the movement required to get here. "Immigration" has always been a byword for the problem of people who are racialised as undesirable, whether they were born here or not.

Read more

The hypocrisy is embedded in the history. I often wonder how it was that the arrival of the SS Windrush in 1948, carrying fewer than 500 West Indians specifically invited to come and work in the UK, was and remains such a symbol of profound soul searching for the national identity. That event stands in stark contrast to the more than 200,000 eastern Europeans and 100,000 Irish immigrants who came to Britain during the same period. The former is regarded as a turning point in the fabric of the nation's identity, the latter is barely remembered at all.

But this illogicality in our narratives around immigration is not confined to the past. I have spent most of my life living in leafy southwest London, an area often described as "quintessentially English", helped by the presence of rowing on the Thames at Putney and Hammersmith, lawn tennis at Wimbledon, botanical gardens at Kew and Henry VIII's old hunting grounds in the deer-populated Richmond Park. These areas are still perceived as unchanged by mass immigration.

Dig a little deeper, however, and it emerges that locals call this area the "biltong belt" because of the large presence of white South Africans, Australians and New Zealanders. In fact, white immigration has had the same impact as immigration everywhere - provided skilled and unskilled labour to meet economic demand, triggering the arrival of a new wave of biltong-themed shops, and requiring planning to provide the requisite housing; school places; doctors surgery capacity. The difference is that this immigration is never weaponised as a threat to the national heritage, or as a reason for pre-existing communities to flee. This immigration has been largely unproblematic because it is white, English-speaking and less visibly "other".

Government sets out plans for a new points-based immigration system

The notion of "other" is in itself deeply ironic. The history of immigration law is a history of government attempts to limit the movement of people who had not long before been British subjects as imperial citizens. As Rab Butler, former home secretary, said about the Commonwealth Immigration Act in 1962, these were laws whose "restrictive effect is intended to, and would in fact, operate on coloured people almost exclusively".

Today's governments are more subtle in their language. The word "coloured" disappeared from the letter of our legislation but retains its power in effect. Immigration lawyers frequently remark, after visits to immigration detention centres, how few white immigrants can be found there - these are warehousing facilities for the still undesirable African, Asian, South American and other non-white people. In my work, I have interviewed many who were arrested in dawn raids while in the process of lawfully regularising their immigration status.

The most blatant examples of contemporary racism - the Windrush scandal for example - have exposed a historical continuity that infects the entire immigration system. The "root cause" of the scandal, Wendy Williams, inspector of constabulary, found, can be traced back to the "racial motivations" of immigration laws at their most racialised birth.

The sooner we acknowledge that legacy, and dispense with the fantasy that immigration has nothing to do with race, the sooner we will be able to consign this ongoing, abhorrent injustice to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

More about

1/1 How the UK decided only white immigration could be an asset

How the UK decided only white immigration could be an asset

In the UK, white immigration is an asset - while everyone else is undesirable

These laws have been racialised since their inception, argues Afua Hirsch. There's a reason only some nationalities are seen as unthreatening to British identity

Daily Coronavirus Briefing

No hype, just the advice and analysis you need

Sign up
Already have an account? Log in here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: How the UK decided only white immigration could be an asset

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voices These laws have been racialised since their inception, argues Afua Hirsch. There's a reason only some nationalities are seen as unthreatening to British identity Friday 24 April 2020 16:53 A conversation that has stayed with me came after the Brexit vote in 2016, when a French friend, who is white, told me of her anxiety at the outcome.