As we move into an era where work experience and unpaid internships take precedent how do we feel about the possibility of becoming the work experience generation?

A new study by UNISON released in March this year has revealed that across the UK around four people are competing for each job vacancy made available, rising to more than 20 applicants in some parts of the country such as London and the Isle of Wight. It puts forward the questions the conundrum. How do you get a job that without experience or experience without a job?

As the necessity for experience is on the increase the chance for young people to gain it in the work place appear to be growing slimmer. A long-term study has revealed since 1990 the proportion of 16-17 year old with a part time job has dropped by half as youths battle for jobs with their older risky in today’s hard economic times can young people really be blamed for holding the highest unemployment figures of all age groups and without opportunities how can they go about changing their prospects?

Oliver Tracey, aged 19, has worked in a variety of fields from hairdressing to bar work since the age of 16, told The Fresh Outlook team he believes it’s all about drive.

He said: “I think that if a young person wants a job and has the drive to do well then it is possible to become part of the current job market.

“We all pick up skills that can be transferred to the work place in everyday life however it’s about showing them and using them in the correct way that can make the difference. You may not get your dream job straight away but there are businesses out there willing to help and definitely opportunities to help you get your foot in the door. You just have to be willing to look for them.”

The government believe however the root of youth unemployment lies in a lack of real work place experience and in August last year launched a pilot scheme hoping to combat these issues. Based in London the scheme aimed to help 6,000 18-24 year olds who applied for job seekers allowance with little or no work experience in the past three months by placing them in a work experience program. The program lasted 13 weeks with people working 30 hour weeks in various sectors including charities, social enterprises and voluntary organisations. The aim was to give these young people work place relevant skills to improve their long term employment prospects.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: “It’s no secret that work experience can be the key that opens the door to a successful career and more young Londoners need to be given the opportunity to do it. Right now it’s a tough labour market out there and we have to ensure that all young people get the skills they need to succeed and for which employers are crying out.”

When the recession first hit many young people headed to university in an attempt to improve their long term job prospects. A recent study by High Fliers Research however has revealed that graduates applying for positions who have not undertaken previous work experience while at university will have little to no chance of landing a well-paid job with a leading employer after completing their study.

Martin Birchall, managing director of High Fliers Research said: “This latest research confirms that taking part in work placements or internships while at university is now just as important as getting a 2.1 or first-class degree.”

And there are many students for who this is exactly the problem. One such case is Emily Farley who spoke to the BBC concerning her frustrations about being part of the work experience generation. After leaving university with a first class degree Emily has undertaken a number of internships in an attempt to break into the journalism field however none have resulted in a graduate position.

“It seems as though internships have replaced entry-level jobs,” she says. “It’s all about being in the right place at the right time.”

When this knowledge is laid alongside high university fees and student debts it leaves some students question if it was worth the hard work.

As it becomes clearer work experience is pivotal in gaining a successful career many universities have responded by offering volunteering opportunities to their students. Yet why aren’t all students taking these valuable opportunities and why aren’t universities doing more to make these a compulsory part of their degree program? An important factor is availability. Many students are left unaware the importance of completing relevant work experience until they enter into the job market as universities aren’t able to offer enough placements to support students. Further statistics by High Flier research also revealed top businesses targeted 20 or fewer universities when offering internships, with Warwick University topping the chart, leaving universities and students further down the table at a disadvantage when providing opportunities.

However some claim that this rise in work experience comes down to much more than just “being in the right place at the right time” as Emily described or studying at a top university. Many argue that the current work experience culture is in fact giving an unfair advantage to well connected and wealthy families. The report, Work Experience – Impact and Delivery, Insights from the Evidence, conducted last year says “The problem is that half of placements are found by young people or by their families using largely existing social networks.” It is this reliance on family connections that leaves many job seekers at a disadvantage when applying for experience or jobs at top institutions using positions as a way to reinforce elitist networks as opposed to aiding the professional growth of deserving individuals.

As part of the social mobility scheme introduced by the government in 2011 deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg responded to these ideas.

He said: “We want a fair job market based on merit not networks.”

He continued that career opportunities should not rely on “who your father’s friends are.”

He said: “It should be about what you know, not who you know.”

In the current economic climate and work experience boom these promises seem more important than ever yet are they still just pie in the sky ideas or are businesses really ready to look outside their own social networks and embrace the unknown?

And young people are not the only ones falling prey to the experience effect. With many adults re-entering the job market to change career paths they also face starting from the bottom. Research by leading office recruitment firm Office Angels reveals the job for life is fast becoming a thing of the past with people taking on a variety of different job roles in many different sectors throughout their lifetime.

They state: “The concept of a career – let alone a job – for life could have all but disappeared within 25 years, replaced by workers pursuing a succession of different career paths.”

This job versatility however creates an interesting but slightly worrying question – can we be expected to build up a wealth of voluntary experience for every industry we may enter into throughout our life?

However David Clubb, managing director of Office Angels, said: “Whereas experience and loyalty were the core attributes in the ‘jobs for life’ era.

“What’s emerging from our research is that flexibility and adaptability are going to be valued increasingly highly over the next few decades. That’s not to say that having the relevant skills and a sense of dedication to the job won’t be important, but companies and employees will have to find a new balance.”

So with all this information what route should we be taking to improve our employment prospects both right now and for the future? This idea of balance is an extremely important concept that many job seekers and businesses alike will be trying to embrace to stay on top of the job market. As 2013 sees many businesses offering more volunteer placements to graduates than in the previous year and job seekers across all age groups working harder to prove their the right candidate for the job transferable skills and versatility are becoming more important than ever.

And while we may be the exhausted work experience generation steadily fighting to get out feet in the career door recent growth in employment figures has revealed one thing – we are not ready to give up just yet.

By Jazzria Harris

[Image courtesy of HelenCobain]

Across the UK there have been calls to loosen up prostitution legislation in line with New Zealand and the Netherlands, but now two devolved governmental figures seek to introduce a ban on paying for sex. These proposals in Scotland and Northern Ireland have been controversial with many workers in the sex industry with claims that a ban on paying will leave many prostitutes more vulnerable and impoverished and with little chance of employment elsewhere.

Currently in the UK prostitution – the exchange of sex for money – is legal but associated activities such as running brothels, procuring sex, public solicitation, kerb-crawling and pimping are all criminal.

Rhoda Grant MSP and Lord Morrow of the Northern Ireland Assembly have both introduced private member’s bills, based on the Nordic model, proposing to criminalise the buying of sex (but to effectively continue to allow the selling of sex). Sweden was the trailblazer nation for the existing Nordic legislation on buying sex, having criminalised the practice in 1999. Since then Norway and Iceland have implemented similar laws.

Rhoda Grant, MSP for the Highlands and Islands, claims that her Purchase of Sex Bill would reduce demand for prostitution and eventually hopes that it would become a thing of the past.
She said: “To me this is important because there is an imbalance in our legislation. At the moment, prostitutes are criminalised but those who purchase sex are not.”

Lord Morrow claims that his bill is primarily to deal with Northern Ireland’s human trafficking, rather than prostitution.

He maintains: “We do know that the vast majority of people who are trafficked are trafficked into the sex trade.”

The bills would not completely decriminalise selling sex: nonetheless, there are concerns that a ban on paying for sex may force prostitution underground, making it more difficult to control and more dangerous for prostitutes. Indeed in 2010 a previous Scottish attempt to ban prostitution was rejected amid fears of a regression to clandestine practices making prostitutes less visible and more vulnerable.

The bills have been met with fierce criticism from those who give frontline support to prostitutes, such as the UK Network of Sex Work Projects (UKNSWP). Speaking to the Fresh Outlook, a spokesperson for UKNSWP claimed that they are an unenforceable and regressive move.

They said: “Methods of deterrence including the criminalisation of the purchase of sex are usually ineffective. Sex workers and their clients will work in different ways to avoid criminalisation. Any deterrence relating to the criminal justice process would ultimately put those involved in selling at risk, especially those selling sex on the street.

“It will also deter sex workers from reporting violence committed against them due to concerns of being implicated in criminal activity, thus making a marginalised, stigmatised group more vulnerable to exploitation.”

Alex Bryce is manager of the National Ugly Mugs Scheme, which works to alert sex workers or the police of potentially dangerous individuals.
Bryce said: “[The proposals] will further stigmatise sex workers and create a framework within which it would be even harder to provide accessible health, safety and social care support. Sex workers will inevitably want to make themselves and their work less visible and will therefore be less likely to engage with support services or police.”

The bills have been published under the authority that the Swedish model is an ideal, but this proclamation could be considered slightly spurious.

Rose Alliance, a Swedish sex worker organisation, has claimed that an increasing number of people are entering the sex industry in Sweden despite the ban. After the ban on buying sex, prostitutes had to lower their rates to correspond with the loss of custom. Further, prostitutes have had less choice in their clients, and due to the illegality, clients are more likely to put pressure on a quick and risky meeting. These knock-on effects only intensify the hazardous nature of the transaction and increase the danger for the sex worker.

UKNSWP told The Fresh Outlook that there was evidence from Sweden that criminalisation has resulted in many women working off the streets through networks often organised by taxi drivers, and they have been made vulnerable to harm and economic exploitation.

They state that there is a low conviction rate – only 500 in 10 years.
A spokesperson said: “The legislation has had a paradoxical effect as it has resulted in higher levels of risk and danger to the most vulnerable – street based sex workers”.

Rose Alliance concurs, saying that legal action can have an adverse effect on prostitutes. They explicitly state that the criminalising of various aspects of sex work involved risk for prostitutes, and advocate a direct involvement of sex workers in decisions that affect them.

Indeed the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare claimed that despite an initial downturn subsequent to the new law, 8 years later in 2007 “two thirds of street prostitution was back”.

Alex Bryce reported in the Huffington Post that the proposals infantilise everyone involved in the sex industry by removing control over their bodies and livelihood, mentioning that many prostitutes may have families to support. Often there are no feasible alternative employment options for prostitutes: due to some aspects of their work being illegal, many sex workers have criminal records which can make it difficult to find employment.

Former call girl Dr Brooke Magnati is resolutely against Rhoda Grant’s bill: “I do not believe the consensual sexual activities of adults, monetised or not, should be in any way criminalised or subject to penalty”.

Magnati said: “[The proposal is] low on information about what sex workers’ lives are really like, and seems informed mainly by skewed sources and dodgy assumptions.”

The International Union of Sex Workers (IUSW) agrees with Magnati, accusing Grant of presenting her personal opinions as solid facts.
They denounce her claims that “prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanising” and that “demand creates a market where vulnerable individuals are compelled and/or forced into a cycle of exploitation that places them, and their families, at risk.”

Stressing that multifaceted social issues cannot be solved by crude legislation, the IUSW claims that there is no evidence that a majority of sex workers are unwilling. They believe that people enter and remain in sex work for a variety of reasons.

However in June 2012 a former prostitute, Janine, told BBC Scotland that she was firmly in favour of men being prosecuted for buying sex after living an existence which she claimed destroyed her.

She said: “I agree that men should be targeted because I worked in a sauna once where the police came in. The guys there all just got up and walked out while we all got charged.”

She added: “I came across one girl in all the years I worked that I actually believed that she was doing this because she liked sex. [She said] ‘I like sex and I get paid for doing it here’.”

It is clear that many prostitutes are forced into the sex industry due to poverty, coercion or desperate circumstances, but it is expressly rejected that this is true in all cases.

In an exclusive comment UKNSWP stated: “[The proposal] promotes the message that sex work always constitutes violence against women – which is a falsehood given substantial research findings to the contrary, and evidence from countries (e.g. New Zealand) where sex workers work within a decriminalised system and have access to the criminal justice system – rather than being excluded from it.”

Dr Magnati – who chose to become a call girl due to lack of funds on completion of her PhD – has also voiced her opinion on the matter. She maintains that Keele University research found 78.7% of sex workers said that they took overall control of the encounter. Only 0.7% said that client always decides. Furthermore, statistics found that the sex workers thought that paying for sex put the clients in the vulnerable position, while 54.5% thought that ‘commercial sexual transactions are relationships of equality’. Clearly, the results confirm that many or most prostitutes feel that they have substantial power when working. Over half of those interviewed were from the UK.

These findings seem to confirm that clients may not have the control over prostitutes when paying for sex, a conclusion that is admittedly contrary to the general public perception of prostitution.

Nonetheless Rhoda Grant believes that the opinion against her bill may in fact reinforce her arguments. In an interview, she said that there was often a view that prostitutes might not have had many options in life – before getting involved in the sex industry freely and willingly.

“If you have no other choice that’s not something you’re doing from your free will”, Grant said, branding prostitution coercion in these circumstances.

Both bills are controversial and have been subject to scrutiny and criticism from prostitutes themselves and frontline sex worker organisations. There is a huge worry that any criminalisation of buying sex will only further stigmatise sex workers and their clients, rendering a vulnerable group more vulnerable. Many prostitutes will have no other means of income, and Dr Magnati asserts that if the purchase of sex is criminalised then they must provide alternative employment options. Attacking the Scottish bill, she said:

“There is no such thing as ‘ending demand’. This is documented by research, by statistics. Anyone who supports criminalisation is basically saying to me and people like me, ‘women’s rights are important, except of course for women like you.’ I reject such a stand as hypocritical and anti-women.”

There seems to be overwhelming empirical evidence against the bills: they are based on a Nordic model which hasn’t necessarily been successful either in curbing the levels of prostitution or in protecting vulnerable sex workers. Yet in New Zealand, where prostitution is legal, prostitutes have fewer social stigmas and legal barriers to force them into hiding so they are more likely to safely approach the police to report abuse or violence.

Passing laws which could put some of the most vilified people in our society at more risk of danger is ultimately a regressive move: rather there must be changes to the law which encourages understanding of the sex work industry and ensures the safety of those working within it.

By Chris Lavery

[Image courtesy of Eelad]

‘Origins of Love’, a novel by Kishwar Desai, explores the highs and lows of India’s surrogacy industry – and the word ‘industry’ certainly seems apt. The practice has become a problem, and this is mainly attributed to the Indian government’s treatment of the system.

Commercial surrogacy, which can be crudely defined as the paying of a surrogate for the child she gives birth to, was legalised in India in 2008 and women often receive upwards of $6,000 for their services. Furthermore, surrogates or couples who wish to find a surrogate can legally post advertisements for surrogacy arrangements. In this way, it is treated like a money-making business but with no regulation to control the industry: it is left to evolve and self-regulate of its own accord. As Desai says, “exploitation in the system is rife, because everyone is making money”.

However, the UK’s difficulties with surrogacy arrangements are slightly different.

The practice has come a long way since the 1980s, when The Warnock Committee (a body inquiring into the changing field of assisted reproduction) launched a hostile attack on the participants in surrogacy arrangements, and one court case branded it “an ugly little drama” comparable to “a baby-farming operation”. Given this vehemence, it is perhaps odd that no attempts were made to formulate regulation.

This seems a far cry from the current situation where internationally famous actors and pop stars are actively endorsing surrogacy as a viable alternative – Nicole Kidman, Sarah Jessica Parker and Neil Patrick Harris all had children using the help of a surrogate mother. Elton John and David Furnish’s second surrogacy-born baby arrived in January. The recent US television series The New Normal, a sitcom about a gay couple using a surrogate mother in order to have a child, is a further modern-day champion of the practice.

Despite the drastic changes in social attitudes in the past few decades, there seems to remain some kind of a morally condemning outlook, as an advisory committee in 1998 did not appear to endorse surrogacy, but advised urgent legal regulation. Nonetheless, this advice was largely ignored, leaving the commissioning parents (the person or couple wishing to have a child), surrogate mothers and the courts in a regulatory vacuum.

The overriding consideration in all surrogacy cases is the welfare of the child. The supremacy of this principle has caused tension with the UK’s prohibition of commercial surrogacy, which can be seen to heighten the ethical risks for exploitation. Another problematic issue is legal parentage: the legislation covering surrogacy was written with IVF treatment in mind, making its application to surrogacy awkward and inappropriate, particularly concerning the legal parents at birth.

As it stands, surrogacy is notably unregulated and this has the undesirable effect of encouraging commissioning couples to enter into informal agreements without any legal advice: this gives the government an added incentive to provide sufficient regulation.

Commercial surrogacy

After the first surrogate baby was born in 1976, the purported moral dilemma in the years following spawned a knee-jerk legislative reaction prohibiting any payment to surrogate mothers.

However this law has been updated and currently payment is allowed for “reasonable expenses” in pregnancy and childbirth. This could include loss of earnings, travel expenses and clothes.

Nevertheless, it seems that this has been largely unsuccessful, fertility lawyer Natalie Gamble telling The Fresh Outlook that “generally speaking it’s ‘reasonable expenses’ only but the amounts paid in practice vary significantly.”

Surrogate mothers often receive £10,000 – 15,000 for their services, the payment being ‘hidden’ amongst the expense claims. Courts can retrospectively authorise payments that were made, on the grounds that the overarching principle of the welfare of the child is best served by the retention of the status quo. This will generally result in the child remaining with the commissioning couple.

In one case of retrospective payment authorisation, the judge Justice Hedley said that: “It is clear to me that payments in excess of reasonable expenses were made in this case. Welfare is not merely the court’s first consideration, but becomes its paramount consideration. The effect of that must be to weight the balance between public policy considerations and welfare decisively in favour of welfare.”

In 1985 Kim Cotton became the UK’s first surrogate mother, receiving £6,500 in exchange for her baby from a childless couple. The ‘Baby Cotton Case’, as it was dubbed by the media, was what brought the fear of commercialisation of surrogacy to the forefront of medical ethics discourse, but the tension between the ‘no payment’ rule and the ‘welfare of the child’ provision has been ongoing: payments are routinely recognised as unlawful yet parental orders are granted to the commissioning parents, as this is generally in the baby’s best interests. Justice Hedley outlined the situation succinctly: “what the court is required to do is balance two competing and conflicting concepts…it is impossible to imagine a set of circumstances where the welfare of the child would not be openly compromised by a refusal to make an order.”

Thus, the purported prohibitions on commercial surrogacy are largely ineffective, and there is clearly scope for significant conflict in these two duties imposed upon the court.

The only sanction that the courts can implement against a commissioning couple who pay a surrogate mother more than reasonable expenses is a refusal of the parental order they are obviously seeking. However, once again the interplay between the two competing provisions comes into question as it is clearly unfair to punish an innocent child by refusing her the parents who wish to raise her. Accordingly, the actions of the couple seem to be of illusory importance in the outcome of most cases: in practice the courts can do little more than pay lip service to the public policy that they are alleged to uphold. This is the basic shortcoming of the UK’s current ability to prohibit surrogacy payment.

Some legal theorists have recommended a reasonable flat sum – a set price will prevent monetary disputes arising and a commercial business developing. Current law must be clarified and reformed in order to allow for a set value to be given to a surrogate mother in exchange for her ‘gestating’ a couple’s (or person’s) future baby.

Legal Parentage

The position for potential parents in surrogacy arrangements can be extremely confusing, legal parentage has an awkward application to surrogacy cases and this is down to a lack of legal regulation. As there is no real surrogacy-specific law, this leaves the regulation of surrogacy arrangements to legislation intended to cover cases of assisted conception -where donated sperm and/or eggs were used. Thus, their application to surrogacy is purely incidental, and can generate inappropriate results in terms of legal parentage.

Natalie Gamble runs a law firm specialising in assisted reproduction cases.

She told the Fresh Outlook: “UK law currently treats the wrong people as the parents of a child born through surrogacy.”

Legislation states that the woman carrying the child is the mother, thus the surrogate will always be the legal mother at birth, regardless of situations where a commissioning mother is genetically related to the child through egg donation. If the surrogate mother is married then he is deemed the legal father. The intended parents will not have any legal relationship with the child at birth, regardless of whether they are the biological parents.

“It’s a rule which was designed to protect parents conceiving with donated eggs or sperm but in surrogacy cases it produces the exact opposite of what everyone intends.”

Moreover, if the surrogate is unmarried, or her husband didn’t consent to the treatment, then the baby will be legally fatherless at birth – despite the fact that there might be up to two men who will become the child’s parents in due course. This bizarre and unsatisfactory situation is even true when the commissioning father’s sperm is used and he expressly desires to have parental responsibility of the child: the law effectively regards him as a sperm donor because the governing legislation was intended to apply to IVF treatment.

Of course, the commissioning parents would be able to dispute the law with DNA evidence or apply for a parental order in order to receive parental rights – however speaking to the Fresh Outlook Gamble claimed that the parental order process “takes 6-9 months and during that time the child remains vulnerable.

“For example, the parents may not be able to consent to vital medical treatment. If the child is born outside the UK, they will not automatically transfer their British nationality and this can leave the child stranded ‘stateless’ abroad. The legal process to make the right people the parents needs to happen much more quickly, or ideally during the pregnancy.”

It seems that the only way that these parentage issues can be avoided is if ‘partial surrogacy’ is used: where an unmarried surrogate mother agrees to either have sex with a commissioning father or employ self-insemination – this would ensure that the he was also the legal father. In this way, the complexity of the ‘regulation’ may be an incentive for couples to resort to unlicensed and uncontrollable methods with substantial health risks – plainly an undesirable consequence. Rather than relying on legislation which incidentally and inadequately regulates some areas of the practice, urgent legal reform for specific legislation is essential for modern surrogacy to gain the reputation it deserves.

In 1997 Karen Roche became a surrogate mother in a highly publicised and controversial case forcing surrogacy campaigner Kim Cotton to complain that 12 years of her efforts in “trying to bring surrogacy out of the gutter” had been spoiled. Roche initially settled on a figure with one couple, but after a fall-out, lied to them, claiming that the child had been aborted. She then struck up a deal with another set of commissioning parents who were willing to pay more money for the baby. It is important to realise that this is an extreme case and surrogacy cases very rarely are taken to court – most surrogacy arrangements end happily for all involved. That said, the difficulties that courts can face are directly attributable to the precarious nature of the law, and thus it is of almost universal opinion that legal reform of the law on surrogacy is an urgent requirement.

Gamble said: “UK surrogacy law is desperately in need of a review – it has been in place since the 1980s and is no longer fit for dealing with the modern world of surrogacy. Parents, surrogates and children are all currently left vulnerable and in legal limbo for far too long. We need properly regulated and recognised surrogacy which balances the rights of everyone involved and protects them.”

It is necessary to reform the current law to ensure that there is surrogacy legislation controlling access within reason and allowing a quick (preferably prenatal) resolution of parentage issues and a set amount of money to be paid to surrogate mothers to avoid commercialisation. Many health experts and legal commentators have suggested a new ‘Surrogacy Act’ to combat these problems.

Although we do not want to follow the dangerous path that India may have taken, towards the possibility of a commercial surrogacy business and babies as products on demand, there certainly need to be substantive legal changes: surrogate mothers and those desiring their help must be able to make this choice with the clarity and backing of a solid legislation, without marching into potentially hazardous legal ground.

By Chris Lavery

[Image courtesy of mahalie]

For legal advice and further information on surrogacy, visit the Natalie Gamble Associates website at www.nataliegambleassociates.com

The rise in suicides in the armed forces has been labelled an “epidemic” by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and has been a growing problem since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since the Pentagon began tracking military suicides twelve years ago, 2012 was the third year they have outnumbered deaths in the field. Data from the US government’s suicide tracking programme – the Department of Defense Suicide Event Report (DoDSER) – show that in the last few years the military rates have been far higher than the rates amongst US civilians. The epidemic escalated at such an alarming pace last year that barely a day went by without an active service member committing suicide.

A 2011 DoDSER report found that most of the military personnel who killed themselves that year were junior ranking white men in their 20s with no college education. The rate was also 55% higher for divorced service members. Most of the suicides were committed with a gun, and these were generally personal firearms as opposed to military-issued weapons.

The military branch with the highest suicide rate by far was the Army, with 182 suicides and probable suicides. However the Marine Corps, the Air Force and the Navy have all had percentage increases since 2011.

However, this problem doesn’t only affect active-duty troops and the statistics are only more alarming amongst military veterans. Figures from the US Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) latest report on suicide show that about 22 former servicemen are committing suicide every day. This roughly equates to once every 65 minutes.

According to US military suicide researchers from the University of Utah, Iraq and Afghanistan war vets who are suffering from depression, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or who had substance abuse problems have one of the fastest accelerating suicide rates.

There is a widely-held view that suicides by current and former military personnel are due to the psychological damage incurred by the fear and terror of battlefield memories. However this has been rebutted by military psychiatrists who claim that it is deep feelings of shame and guilt which generally drive soldiers and veterans to suicide. They have come up with the notion of ‘moral injury’ to help understand why the numbers of suicides are so disturbingly high.

The survivor’s guilt and shame that many service members experience derive from ‘moral injuries’ sustained during combat. These injuries are varied and tend to manifest as damage to deeply-held personal beliefs about right and wrong. Apparently the worst kinds of moral injuries stem from a failure to protect soldiers on their side, or ‘friendly-fire’ situations where soldiers are accidentally killed by the actions of their fellow countrymen.

William Nash, a military psychiatrist, claims that the “significance of that is unfathomable; it’s comparable to the feelings I’ve heard from parents who have lost a child.”

Indeed, it is common for war veterans to describe the relationships that were forged with fellow servicemen during deployment as the closest and most intense bond they ever had. British war veteran and journalist James Jefferies describes his time serving in wars in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan as having given rise to his most tangible relationships: “People watched out for you, didn’t look through you every day.”

In 2008 Time magazine reported examples of moral injury from the Iraq War in an article detailing the high demand for prescription drugs to cope with mental distress. A typical description of a moral war wound was apparently: “A friend was liquefied in the driver’s position on a tank, and I saw everything”.

The VA has detailed the effects of moral injury as a result of war.

They define it as: “Extreme and unprecedented life experience including the harmful aftermath of exposure to such events.”

Moral injury from war can result from different acts of combat including killing; harming; following or giving orders which are gross moral violations; witnessing deaths or injuries; failing to prevent the immoral actions of others; or making unintentional errors resulting in the deaths of civilians, particularly children.

Upshots of moral injury could include shame, guilt, anxiety and subsequent behavioural manifestations like withdrawal, alienation, self-condemnation, self-sabotaging relationships with friends and family, alcohol and drug abuse self-harming, and suicidal ideation.

The suicide epidemic is in some ways a perverse manifestation of the horrors that many personnel faced after a decade in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. The issue is complicated when consideration is given to the shrinking numbers employed in the armed forces, and the fact that many troops have been withdrawn from military deployment in the Middle East. Being discharged from military service can give a devastating sense of loss for those who have dedicated their entire lives to the force, living and breathing a wholly military lifestyle for years on end.

After one unsuccessful suicide attempt, 23 year old William Busby was asked to retire from the US Army or he would be discharged on medical grounds. In a report by the Guardian, his mother claimed that he told her: “I’m nothing now. I’ve been thrown away by the army.” He committed suicide in March 2012 following months of severe mental trauma after alluding to distressing events at war such as times he had killed, and seeing friends being killed next to him. Busby’s post-war desperation clearly falls under this umbrella of moral injury, and these feelings were compounded when he was forced to leave a military background behind him after a life revolving around the Army.

Many ex-military recruits feel in a similar position after being discharged or simply returning from deployment. Some studies have found that the problems of PTSD and survivor’s guilt are often linked to difficulties re-engaging with society. Indeed, veterans can face an enormous struggle to assimilate back into life as a civilian. Ex-serviceman James Jefferies said:

“Having recognised oneself to have been a voluntary party to violence and cruelty, one learns how desperately important it is to try to be good. But [on returning] one is confronted by a civilian population full of petty selfishness, nastiness and ignorance, while patting you on the back for your service. You’re left just a tad frustrated and confused, as well as feeling trapped.”

Nevertheless, these disturbing suicide statistics make it desperately clear that military service members and veterans are in serious need of help. Lawmakers from Washington have urged the Pentagon and the VA to offer more mental health services.

Sen. Patty Murray (D, Wash.) said in January: “This is an epidemic that cannot be ignored,” championing new legislation on mental health services in the military.

“As our newest generation of service members and veterans face unprecedented challenges, today’s news shows we must be doing more to ensure they are not slipping through the cracks.”
The VA has introduced various suicide prevention schemes, such as the free Veteran Crisis Line, hiring Suicide Prevention Coordinators at all VA Medical Centres, and hiring and training staff to increase the capacity of the crisis line by 50%. They are also hiring 1,600 new clinical staff in order to expand access to mental health services.

They claim to have made approximately 26,000 rescues of actively suicidal veterans and data from their latest report should improve their ability to reach potential suicides quickly and to examine the effectiveness of suicide prevention programmes across the US in order that effective initiatives can be replicated elsewhere.
One interesting and unconventional coping mechanism for those struggling with moral injuries of war is the use of creative arts like music, dance, painting, sculpture and writing.

Lt Col Ron Capps is a veteran of five wars, and throughout his military time he attempted suicide and was treated for PTSD. In order to cope with his experiences he turned to the written word, and he now runs creative writing workshops at National Intrepid Center of Excellence, a US military medical centre, in an attempt to offer holistic care for service members returning from warzones.
Capps said: “When we’re faced with a really traumatic memory our brain has to make a decision: ‘What do I do with this memory?’ It gets pushed aside because your mind doesn’t know how to deal with it. By accessing that memory using a creative art you distance yourself. You’re able to create something tangible and you can take it and shape it in a different way.

“And by telling that story through writing or art or music or dance or any of these expressive arts, by telling that story over and over again, it becomes less threatening, less dangerous and less of a problem. That’s what’s worked for me. You just tell it until it doesn’t scare you anymore.”

Art therapist Melissa Walker also has complete confidence in the remedial powers of expressive arts, claiming that many of her patients have changed as a result of their creations.
She said: “They’ll look up and express what they’ve created and something is different about them. Something has been lifted off their shoulders.”

Neurologists at this centre are exploring whether writing, art and music can have a soothing effect on scars of war and this is the first time that the theory will be clinically tested. Currently anecdotal evidence suggests that it has a profoundly positive impact, but it remains to be seen whether science, and indeed suicide statistics, can back this up.

Despite these efforts to make a difference, it remains a cold fact that military suicide rates have risen, and that more active duty soldiers die at their own hands than on the battlefield is a trend that must be bucked.

There is evidence that military personnel who are deployed several times are more likely to commit suicide, according to Phillip Carter from defence think-tank Center for a New American Security. “We are starting to see the creeping up of suicides among those who have had multiple deployments”, he said. An explanation for this could be that war’s harmful consequences, its moral injuries, might build up with a cumulative impact from one tour of Afghanistan to the next.

The importance of dealing with troops who have returned from deployment then becomes doubly clear: it is their re-integration into normal civilian life that could be key to reversing the trend. When a soldier returns from war for a temporary period, carrying mental scars and moral injuries which are not treated, he may then return to war with these psychiatric injuries which can only get worse without proper counselling or care.

The sister of soldier Christopher Nguyen, who committed suicide last August, claimed that that “he was practically begging for help and nothing was done.” Christopher had been diagnosed with an “adjustment disorder” – like so many others he had trouble coping with returning home after three deployments in war-torn countries. His sister said that her brother was not given the help he needed before he became suicidal, and she blames the Army for failing him:

“It’s the responsibility of the military to help these men and women,” she stated. “They sent them over there [to war]; they should be helping them when they come back.”

In any case it is apparent that much more must be done to help troops returning from war recover from their mental and moral wounds and facilitate a smoother transition from the battlefield to civilian life. Veterans and active-duty personnel must receive regular mental health checkups and counselling must be provided to all service members after – and if possible during – deployment. It is simply not acceptable that, after over a decade of fighting and thousands of deaths in nations blighted by war and corruption, US military recruits are dying in greater numbers from the end of their own weapon, and in their own country.

By Chris Lavery

[Image courtesy of The US Army]

A government poll last year showed that 67,050 children were waiting to be adopted in the first part of the year and this year the figures have gradually increased. Many considering adopting are put off by the thought of the very lengthy process which is compulsory. The government are aiming to make the system easier to understand so more children can get adopted into good families.

In addition there has been the discovery that social networking sites, particularly Facebook is now contributing to children finding their birth families. Adoption UK and British Association of Adoption and Fostering have voiced their concerns over this due to unplanned and unsupported meetings with birth families.

Sue Kent said: “With a click of the mouse, an emotional hand grenade can be lobbed right into the middle of a family’s life, and the fall-out can be devastating for all parties.”
This highlights the devastating emotional and psychological impact it can have for all concerned. It is recommended that adopted children should wait until they are at least eighteen before they arrange any meeting with their birth families. With Facebook however, the age could go considerably lower, something that social workers do not approve of. They have been asking for advice about this and it has been stated that there is nothing the government can actively do to prevent the input of Facebook.

Adoption organisations and most social workers agree that it is important for children and their adoptive parents to have an open and communicative relationship. They believe this is essential as it reduces the likelihood that children will try and find any information about their past anywhere online. It is an extremely complex issue and needs to be discussed in an honest and open way directly from the adoptive parents.

Mixed-race adoption has also been a big issue recently. A government poll was taken and it showed that 47% of white people considered it best to match children with adoptive parents of the same race or religion. Jane Davidson who adopted a child years ago said: “I think I never really appreciated how much difference it would make for her being black in a largely white area. I think she had some difficult times when she was younger. I am sorry for any difficulties myself and my husband may have created unwittingly for her in her life. That was really not what we wanted.”

This shows that some adoptive parents may be worried at the thought of any racism or bullying towards their child. The concern highlights the possibility that many adoptees may feel alienated by the fact that they are not the same as their adoptive parents. To reduce this possibility, many believe that if they were matched, children would be able to relate more to their adoptive parents. This could also reduce any concerns of conflict and non-communication.

In retrospect only 29% of individuals from ethnic minorities thought it best for authorities to match children with adoptive parents of the same religion or race. Labour’s Adoption and Children Act state that it is the priority to avoid the dreaded lengthy process as much as possible. They believe that potential adoptees should not wait to be adopted by parents who match in any way of the criteria above and “the love of a good family is all the child really needs.”

A study was conducted over three years by the British Association of Adoption and Fostering where 72 orphans from China were all adopted by white British families. Research showed that 54% of the adoptees experienced a tough childhood in adolescence with many feeling like an outcast in their own family and surrounding community. However, the study did draw up a positive result with many of the adoptees stating that they felt more comfortable with their appearance as they grew older.

Ash Chand of the National Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children stated that: “Ethnicity, culture, language and religion help to fully form a child’s identity. These aspects of identity should be considered when matching suitable adoptive parents with children in care.”

Education Secretary, Michael Gove hopes to end the “misguided” belief of potential adoptees having to be matched in any way with potential adoptive parents. Campaigners believe the confusion about interracial adoptions stem from the lack of research about it. They are hoping for new studies investigating it so they can gain a better understanding of the effects of mixed-race adoptions.

By Clara Hickman

[Image courtesy of special operations]

However, with food fraud such a prevalent international crime it is doubtful as to whether a meat free diet will ensure that you know what you are eating.

In mid-January this year, Irish food inspectors announced that they had found horse DNA in value burgers sold in a range of large supermarket chains including Tesco and Iceland. Since then revelation upon revelation has ensued, with horse meat found in everywhere from Findus lasagne to Ikea meatballs. Many products have now been recalled for containing horse or merely as a precaution and more tests have been done.

Each stage of the food chain has blamed the one before. Findus France claims to have had no knowledge of the faux beef, blaming French meat processing company Spanghero of selling them mislabelled meat, who in turn are denying all knowledge. According to them, it is the fault of a Romanian meat processing company who sold it to them.

No matter whom the blame is eventually discovered to rest on, one thing has come to light: we do not necessarily know what is in our food.

The scandal over the horse meat has lead to people losing faith in the meat industry and in particular, processed meat, to the point where they are turning to vegetarianism. A poll by market research company ComRes has revealed that 7% of people have stopped eating meat as a direct result of the scandal and a survey carried out by Consumer Intelligence says that one in five people have reduced the amount of meat that they buy. Both Asda and Holland and Barratt have reported a rise in sales of vegetarian meals.

But there are still fears that even a meat free diet cannot guarantee the food safety that the consumer desires. Despite Justin King, CEO of Sainsbury’s, assurance that this is not “the tip of an iceberg”, food fraud has been happening for years in many different guises.

On February 21, Oceana, an international ocean conservation organisation, released the results of a two year seafood fraud investigation, which both surprising and worrying results. Having tested over 1200 samples of seafood from 674 retail outlets in 21 states in the US they found that a third of seafood products were mislabelled according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines. The Boston Globe conducted a similar investigation in 2012 in which they discovered that fish was mislabelled half of the time in the state of Massachusetts.

Whilst this mislabelling is either done by accident or for financial reasons, there can still be dangerous ramifications for the consumer. Cheaper fish are often passed off as their more luxury counterparts, for example of the 120 samples of red snapper that Oceana collected, only seven where the actual species advertised.

The case with tuna is similar. Oceana found that 59% of the fish labelled as tuna was actually another type of fish and that 84% of fish labelled as “white tuna” was in fact escolar. Escolar is a type of snake mackerel, which causes gastrointestinal symptoms if consumed in quantities of more than six ounces. Due to its potentially harmful side effects the importation and retail of the fish is banned in Japan and Italy and in other countries such as Canada, Sweden and Denmark, it is required to be sold with a warning label.

Kimberly Warner, report author and senior scientist at Oceana, said: “Some of the fish substitutions we found are just disturbing. Apart from being cheated, many consumers are being denied the right to choose fish wisely based on health or conservations concerns.” The organisation blamed the FDA for the substitutions, claiming that they were too lax in enforcing food fraud laws. According to Oceana, 90% of fish that is consumed in the US is imported but only 1% is checked for mislabelling.

They are calling for tracking of fish from the boat to the plate in order to give the consumer complete knowledge about what they are eating. In a statement on their website, they said: “Our government has a responsibility to provide more information about the fish sold in the U.S., as seafood fraud harms not only consumers’ wallets, but also every honest vendor and fisherman cheated in the process–to say nothing of the health of our oceans.”

These are not the only examples of food fraud resulting in health problems. In 2008 in China an estimated 300,000 children became ill and six died as a result of melamine being added to milk. Several companies had added the chemical to milk in order to pass off the watered down product in random spot checks, which tested the nitrogen levels for proof of protein.

Other examples of foods that are regularly doctored are olive oil, honey, coffee and juice. The US Pharmaceutical Convention has published an online database of food ingredient fraud and adulteration from 1980 to 2010 and some of the revelations are startling from ground twigs being added to coffee to plasticisers being added to jam.

It seems that merely avoiding meat, as some people are now trying, will not guarantee that what you eat is what you think that you are eating.

Part of the problem of food fraud, which is highlighted in the horse meat scandal, is the globalisation of trading. We no longer know, and apparently food manufacturers do not either, where our foods is coming from and therefore have no idea what is in it. The claim that Findus had no idea that what they were selling was horse meat could very well be true since the meat they purchased was from a French firm, who in turn bought it from a Cypriot trader who bought it from a Dutch company who were the original buyers from Romanian slaughterhouses. With so many links in the chain, it is easy to see how information can be lost and facts hidden for so long.

A number of solutions have been proposed in the wake of the horse meat scandal as to how to make sure your food is the genuine article. Transparency International, a global coalition against corruption, has suggested a few ways in which to do this on their blog. As well as the obvious advice to buy local produce they suggest food that is Fairtrade certified. Fairtrade International works to ensure both price transparency and direct trading. This means that more information is given to the consumer and there are less middle men that could potentially tamper with the food. Some companies have even set up online traceability tools so the buyer can see exactly where the product came from.

Celebrity chef, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall says that although almost all of the meat he cooks himself he has reared personally, he knows that it is not a solution for everyone. He suggests local butchers or farm shops, where you can be told exactly where the meat came from, or if this is not an option to go for meat that is independently audited, such RSPCA’s auditing of Freedom Foods. He wrote in the Guardian that: “We should never forget that we vote for the food we get every time we hand over money for it. Where meat is concerned, it’s time to stop paying for the unknown, and the third rate. The price may be just too high.”

In the US, Oceana are calling for more law enforcement for food mislabelling, and it won’t be long until people in the UK are demanding the same thing, however in the mean time it might be wise to think twice about the things we are putting in our mouths.

By Alexandra Warren

[Image courtesy of procsilas]

It is now literally in front of everyone’s eyes, and the crisis is growing ever more serious.

Data recorded by the American Embassy in Beijing has shown that in January and February 2013 air pollution reached hazardous levels in the capital. The embassy is releasing hourly readings of levels of PM2.5 in the air, which is particulate matter that that is fine enough to penetrate deeply into the lungs and bloodstream, causing serious health problems. According to the World Health Organisation guidelines, a level of 50 micrograms of PM2.5 per cubic metre is considered healthy. In some parts of the city in January it reportedly hit 900.

Flights were grounded, shops sold out of face masks and air-purifiers and residents were urged to stay indoors. The smog is so bad that it is reportedly visible from space.

However, this is not the only effect that China’s rapidly growing, smoke emitting economy has had to the environment. The less visible but nevertheless equally harmful soil and water pollution have been quietly damaging the country for years.

A third of industrial waste water is released, untreated, into rivers and lakes, including chemicals, heavy metals and dyes. This has resulted in a lack of safe drinking water for half of the Chinese population and in 2011 the government declared that 43% of state monitored rivers were so polluted they were unsuitable for human contact. A farmer in Zhejiang province recently offered 200,000 yuan (about £20,000) to his local environmental chief if he swam in a polluted river. His offer was not taken up.

The danger is also coming from below, as soil is being poisoned by chemicals, pesticides and heavy metals. The government has refused to release the results of a two year investigation into soil contamination across the country, prompting fears that it is much worse than originally thought. Chinese villagers from near Baiyin city told the Telegraph that the soil was black, when it should have been yellow as well as stories of sheep losing all their teeth after grazing on polluted land.

Finding the cause of the pollution is simple; it is the factories, cars and power stations that are causing the damage. The government’s economic policy of growth at all costs is now feeling the costs. Industry has grown too big, too fast, resulting in vast amounts of production with a poor infrastructure. Factories lack treatment plants for their waste, low grade petrol is used in cars and there is little to no insulation in buildings. Zhang Ping, head of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), has said that some industries, such as coal coke, steel and cement are only operating to 70-75% of their capacity. Everything from transport to farming is inefficient and China is fuelling this inefficiency by burning more and more coal.

In 2010, China became the world’s largest energy consumer, and the US Energy Administration claims that it currently accounts for 47% of the globe’s coal consumption, meaning that it burns nearly as much as the rest of the world combined.

The ramifications of this are serious, and the effects are already being felt. There are numerous reports of how pollution is damaging public health. Hospitals in cities are full of patients suffering from all kinds of respiratory illnesses and people in the countryside have complained of mysterious pains, peeling skin, dizziness and chest pains. Cancer is now the biggest cause of death and the rate of babies born with deformities increased by 40% from 2001 to 2006.

As well as harming the people, the pollution is also contributing to global warming. In 2006 alone China produced 6.23 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide and emissions of greenhouse gases increased by 56% between 1992 and 2002. The effects of this could be arguably already being felt with temperatures across the country increasing and sea levels in Shanghai and Tianjin reportedly rising according to the Chinese State Oceanic Administration.

Attempts are being made to rein in the amount of pollutants released into the water, air and land and clean up those that are already there, but many fear that it is too little, too late.

The government has promised to spend 4 trillion yuan (approximately £425 billion) on improving water supplies in rural areas of the country as well as pledging to spend £132 billion on cleanup projects. The government has closed 103 factories, taken a third of their vehicles out of use and tried yet again to enforce stricter fuel standards. However many have accused them implementing schemes that are only dealing partially with the effects of pollution rather than tackling the cause of the problem, the reason behind this being that any serious attempt to curb production of pollution will inevitably curb the economy, which could cause political unrest.

In the last thirty years, China’s GDP has increased astronomically causing social shifts in the country. A growing middle class is estimated to make up 40% of city dwellers and approximately 120 million migrant workers have moved from rural regions to more prosperous urban areas in search of work. These people have grown used to the economic climate of growth and prosperity, and should this be curtailed, their lives will be affected.

There have already been examples of protests and strikes in some areas of the country. Thousands of workers at a shoe factory in Dongguan protested after jobs were cut and salaries reduced in November 2012 and in an industrial zone near Chengdu in south-west China large numbers of steel workers had a three day strike in January 2013. An article in The Economist claimed that “the strikers seemed more militant” than workers involved in protests in 2010.

“Workers are not willing this time to accept that they have to make sacrifices for the national good because firstly they have already made enough sacrifices, and secondly, fewer are willing to just pack up and go home,” says Geoff Crothall of China Labour Bulletin, an NGO in nearby Hong Kong. The National Bureau of Statisticians estimated in 2010 that 60% of migrant workers are now in fact second generation. This means that not only are they accustomed to living in urban areas, but they have no experience of agricultural life and have less inclination to go back to it should their jobs in the factories disappear. If fewer workers are required there unemployment will rise creating a large number of politically volatile citizens.

The rise of the use of the internet, and in particular of microblogging, coupled with an economic downturn could create a serious threat to the Communist Party. Although Twitter is banned in the country, many Chinese use a similar site called Weibo. Launched in August 2009 by the SINA Corporation, it now has over 300 million users and about 100 million messages are posted daily. Where the government could easily prevent news leaking out through use of the state-controlled media before, it now faces more of a challenge. As well as news spreading, plans of protests and strikes can also be communicated through the site, in a similar way to the use of Facebook during the Arab Spring.

If the government are serious about improving the environment they will have to impose much stricter regulations on industry. The cost of cleaning up production after years of steaming ahead with no thought to the consequences will probably be huge, and the money has to come from somewhere, probably resulting in a slowing of national growth and a rise in civil unrest. It seems as if the Communist Party are faced with an impossible choice: the environment or themselves.

By Alexandra Warren

[Image courtesy of madiko83]

Having already imposed sanctions on the rogue state, it is unclear h ow the international community will be able to control the situation before North Korea has the capacity for nuclear weaponry and becomes a threat to the US and Japan. Their neighbour and previous great ally, China, may hold the key to change, but the question remains as to whether they are willing act.

It is difficult to know what goes on inside the shadowy borders of North Korea, however experts say that although Pyongyang has the bomb, they do not have the knowledge and technology to make it into a missile.

In 2006 and 2009, North Korea’s first two nuclear tests were carried out. These were believed to be plutonium and the country is estimated to have enough to make six bombs. There are fears that the latest test was using uranium, however this is has not been verified.

Alongside their nuclear tests, Pyongyang has been developing long range rockets in order to put satellites into orbit. These launches could be used to advance technology and create a missile with nuclear capability. Four previous launches have been unsuccessful, such as the one in May 2012 where the rocket exploded and fell into the Yellow Sea shortly after take off. However, in December 2012, despite UN sanctions against ballistic missiles, North Korea successfully launched a long range rocket which allegedly placed a satellite in space.

This is not sufficient to create a nuclear missile though. Analysts have said that the regime have not been able to create a bomb small enough to put on a long range missile, and they have also not yet tested a rocket to withstand the heat of re-entering the atmosphere. It is also unlikely that should they create a nuclear missile, they can aim it with much accuracy.

Negotiations between North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan and US have tried and failed to persuade Pyongyang to relinquish its nuclear dream. After years of talks, in September 2005 they reached a landmark deal where North Korea promised to halt their nuclear plans in return for aid and political concessions. It then fell through in April 2009 over fears that they were not disclosing all their nuclear assets. After Kim Jong-Il’s death in December 2011, his son and successor Kim Jong-un promised to suspend nuclear activities in return for food aid. This was then suspended following the unsuccessful rocket launch in May 2012.

The UN has also imposed sanctions on the country in an attempt to curb their nuclear appetite. All investigations of trade into the country are to be reported and luxury goods are banned from being exported there. These sanctions are having little effect though as China are allegedly ignoring them.

The international community is left with relatively few options. The UN Security council could impose more sanctions, however if China continues to defy them by not challenging imports to the country then this will have little effect. Further sanctions could be put in place for businesses that handle North Korea’s money meaning that they would be weakened economically and internationally, although many of these firms are believed to be in China and again the sanction may have little effect.

Bargaining, negotiation and deals are another option, however since they have failed consistently in the past there is not reason to believe that this will solve the problem. Furthermore, as the country gets closer to nuclear capability they have more leverage.
So far, the possibility of military intervention has not been mentioned.

The solution seems to lie with China, as they have most economical power over the state. If China refuse to trade and send aid across the border, it will have a hugely detrimental effect on the North Korean people and thus give the rest of the globe leverage over their actions.

But Beijing and Pyongyang have a strategic friendship, which China may be unwilling to sacrifice. In return for money, energy and diplomatic cover at the UN, China receives a buffer between them and US troops in South Korea and is unaffected by instability in the region. It is estimated that China send half a million tons of oil per year to the country as well as food.

Max Fisher argues on the Washington Post blog that China’s allegiance with the Kim dynasty stems from six words: “No war, no instability, no nukes”. Millions of Chinese soldiers died in the Korean War, ending in 1953, leading to a distaste for bloodshed and instability in North Korea may lead to an influx of refugees in the north eastern part of the country. He also argues, however, that although China dislikes Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions, they would rather a stable armed state than an unstable unarmed one.

Nevertheless, both countries have recently undergone a change of leader which may signal a change in their relationship.
Public opinion in China of the part that they play in propping up the pariah state is also changing.

“The public does not want China to be the only friend of the North Korean government, and we’re not even recognized by North Korea as a friend,” said Jin Qiangyi, director of the Center for North and South Korea Studies at Yanbian University in Yanji City. “For the first time, the Chinese government has felt the pressure of public opinion not to be too friendly with North Korea.”

Pressure is also building in the Chinese government as the reluctance of North Korea to reform its crippled economy frustrates leaders. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told reporters last month that they would “like to actively encourage the relevant country to develop economy and improve people’s living conditions.” Despite Kim Jong-Un expressing an interest in improving the country’s economic landscape, analysts argues that this is unlikely to happen as prosperity for the people may threaten his authoritarian rule.

If China does decide to side with the US on this issue and halt aid and trade to the country, they may have enough leverage in order persuade Pyongyang to disarm, although it also could lead to unrest within the country and ultimately the collapse of the regime. If they choose to oppose the US and carry on pursuing a friendship with Korea then they risk dissent among their own people.

Whichever way China’s allegiance falls, it looks like the fate of the North Korea, its nuclear capability and its people are in their hands.

By Alexandra Warren

[Image courtesy of bixentro]

He is now in prison waiting for retrial on charges of corruption and complicity in the deaths of almost 850 protesters. In May 2012, Egypt has held its first ever fair elections and is currently rewriting the constitution. However, the violence continues across the country amid fears that the new regime is no improvement on the last.

Mubarak came to power following the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981 by Islamist militants and remained president for almost 30 years. The country was kept under emergency rule throughout his entire period in office and he placed an emphasis on creating a strong security service which he argued was needed to clamp down on Islamic extremists. This meant that the state had large powers of arrest and the people had relatively few freedoms.

Although he implemented reforms that increased overall growth, nothing was done to alleviate poverty and the gap between the rich and poor widened. In the later years of his rule, 40% of Egyptians lived on £1.50 a day or less.

As well as this, Mubarak’s practices were felt to be undemocratic. He was re-elected as president in 1987, 1993 and 1999 due to restrictions implemented in the Egyptian constitution meaning that no one could run against him. After pressure from the US in 2005, elections were held that allowed candidates to rival him, however his main rival was imprisoned and the vote was subject to fraud and rigging. Widespread belief that Mubarak intended his son, Gamal Mubarak, to succeed him as president sparked protests in 2010.

A revolution against Mubarak’s regime sparked on January 25 2011, the so-called ‘Day of Revolt’, with the aims of bread, freedom and social justice. Millions of people joined a series of protest marches, labour strikes and acts of civil disobedience and on February 11 Mubarak stepped down as president.

Parliament was then dissolved, the constitution suspended and the Supreme Council of Egyptian Armed Forces took over, promising to give up power after either six months or elections had been held. In the elections held between November 2011 and January 2012 the Freedom and Justice Party, affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, took almost half the votes.

The People’s Assembly, the lower house of parliament, then met on January 23 2012 and legislative power was handed over, and on June 29 2012 Mohammed Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood, was sworn in as president after winning the election.

However, their civil unrest is far from over. Amongst fears that Morsi is turning out to be no different from Mubarak, protests started across Egypt on the two year anniversary of the Day of Revolt. Protesters clashed with police outside the presidential palace near Tahrir Square in Cairo, whilst in Ismalia the HQ of the Freedom and Justice Party was set fire to. Protests also occurred in Alexandria, Port Said and Suez.

After six people died in Suez from gunfire and one in Ismalia after clashes with police, Morsi deployed the army in Suez in an appeal for calm. The army took up positions outside state buildings and claimed that their action was only temporary and aimed at protecting state institutions.

On January 28 2013, after four days of unrest, Morsi declared a state of emergency in Suez, Port Said and Ismalia and a curfew from 21:00 to 06:00. This prompted widespread criticism and parallels were drawn between Morsi and the ousted dictator Mubarak. Despite the curfew, marches continued into the night as thousands of residents of the three cities defied the curfew and the violence continued. It was relaxed two days later. By February 1 2013, the death toll was estimated at 60.

Unrest also flared on the two year anniversary of Mubarak’s fall from power. Protesters threw stones with the police retaliating with water cannons and tear gas.

The protesters claim that Morsi is betraying the aims of the revolution and is merely imposing a new form of authoritarian rule. They are demanding greater political and economic change.
BBC Arabic’s Marwa Nasser conducted a series of interviews with protesters in Cairo on January 25 2013, who expressed their disappointment in Morsi’s government.

Layla Adel Shehata, a 17 year old student said: “We demanded “bread, freedom and social justice”, and none of that has been achieved. Everything is the same – unemployment, bad education. The poor don’t even have bread anymore. We called for human dignity. Where is that dignity when they are once again beating and killing us?”

Maha Mohammed, a 36 year old business owner said: “I spent the 18 days of the revolution in Tahrir Square. This revolution is for our children. The new generation needs to see change. Prices have increased even more, and we’re back to square one. We have toppled a gang of thieves only to bring in a new gang of thieves instead. The ruling party is the same as [Hosni Mubarak's former ruling] National Democratic Party, but with beards.”

Fears have also been expressed at a political level, with the formation of the National Salvation Front (NSF), a coalition formed by different factions opposed to Morsi and the Freedom and Justice Party. Formed on November 24 2012, the NSF is made up of many leftist, secular and liberal groups such as the Egyptian Popular Current, al-Dustour, al-Tajammu, Free Egyptians, New Wafd, Democratic Front, the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, Nasserist Democratic Party and the Conference Party.

The NSF formed in response to Morsi’s constitutional declaration made on November 22 2012. It granted Morsi far reaching powers and declared his descicions “final and unchallengeable” until a constitution could be ratified and a new parliamentary election held. The president claimed that these measures were put in to ensure a smooth transition to a constitutional democracy but many have seen it as a grab for power. Mohammed ElBaradei, the former head of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and prominent member of the NSF said that the decree had created a “new pharaoh”.

There has been further criticism over Morsi’s handling of Egypt’s new constitution. The constituent assembly has been declared above judicial review by the president. This means that it cannot be dissolved by the Supreme Constitutional Court. There were complaints by Christians, Liberals and Secularists that the assembly is made up mostly of Islamists who then boycotted a vote on passing a draft version of the constitution. On November 15 2012, Morsi called for a referendum on the constitution, which passed, although some people have claimed that the result of the vote was forged.

After the recent violence, the president called the opposition to talks in order to have a democratic dialogue, and on January 31 2013, leaders from both the Muslim Brotherhood and opposition forces met in the Al-Azhar mosque to discuss the violence. They have signed a charter to condemn the violence and protect private and public property.

Despite this there are still many fears about the new president’s rule and whether he will be able to restore peace and install democracy.
Ahdaf Soueif, wrote in The Guardian on January 25 2013 that: “The demands of the revolution were clear: bread, freedom, social justice. Concerning “freedom”, Morsi has refused to restructure the state’s security apparatus; he appointed as interior minister the man who’d been Cairo’s police chief in 2011 when protesters were massacred in the city’s streets. People continue to be killed in jail and in police stations across the country.” She also added: “If the revolution today says that Morsi has lost legitimacy, it is because his frail majority was born of sections of the revolution voting for him in order to keep out the military and the old regime. He has now betrayed them, and he now has blood on his hands”.

By Alexandra Warren

[Image courtesy of Gigi Ibrahim]

If found guilty, he will face a maximum of three years imprisonment in a special home for juvenile offenders. Two others have also claimed they are minors, and the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is due to rule on their case soon.

The six are accused of beating the physiotherapy student and her male friend on board a bus before gang-raping her and dumping their bodies by the roadside.

The JJB determined the minor’s age as 17 years and six months after examining his school records. This practice has been established by legal precedent. The case of Bhoop Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh (1989) established the date of birth displayed on the school entry certificate could be relied upon against medical evidence on the condition there is no evidence the documentation has been falsified.

The JJB did not ask for a bone ossification test because the minor’s age needs to be determined accurately. Bone ossification tests only produce a rough approximation, which is unhelpful in this instance.

The student’s family has repeatedly called for all six to receive the death penalty. On hearing that the minor could only receive three years, the student’s father said “the punishment should not be less even if he is a juvenile.”

A senior officer in Delhi’s Police echoed the call for retribution. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they told the Hindustan Times: “We will do everything the law permits us to do so that the juvenile accused gets the punishment that he deserves, irrespective of his age.”

“If a couple of months that keep him from the age of 18 can be a reason for a lighter punishment, why can’t some provisions in the law be overlooked given the severity and brutality of the crime?”

While minors have traditionally been given custodial sentences, these have been restorative rather than retributive. Without seeking to excuse or ignore the horrific rape which took place, presume the guilt of the minor or explore the moral issues surrounding the death penalty, Fresh Ties investigates how rising juvenile delinquency is dealt with in India.

Nearly every country has an age of criminal responsibility: the age at which an individual becomes liable for their criminal actions. This age threshold is put in place to protect children from prosecution. If a child were to commit an act which an adult would recognise as ‘criminal’, their age would be sufficient defence. This is known as the defence of infancy.

Supporters of the age threshold claim children cannot be held to the same standards of understanding and behaviour as adults. To provide for their lack of understanding, no matter what the crime, gives the state an alternative to legal action.

Doli incapax argues society sees children as unsocialised. Novels such as The Lord of the Flies by William Golding and The Water-Babies by Charles Kingsley have recognised this, and have stressed the need for adult guidance. The difference is that optimists see children as angelic as Oliver Twist and pessimists see them as demonic as the eponymous character in We Need to Talk about Kevin.

The defence is an application of the legal principle doli incapax (‘incapable of wrong’). Doli incapax excludes children from criminal liability. If a child under the age of criminal responsibility were to be prosecuted, doli incapax would presume that they cannot be held responsible for their actions. This cannot be rebutted by evidence and must be taken to be the case. The recommendation of the age of criminal responsibility made by the committee on the UN Covention on the Rights of the Child is 12.

The UK has made exceptions to doli incapax in the past. This is often done on the basis that the suspect, even at a young age, must have known the enormity of their criminal actions. The most notable exception was the murder of James Bulger, a toddler tortured to death by two ten year old boys. In order to suspend doli incapax prosecutor Richard Henriques QC had to establish the boys knew the difference between right and wrong, and therefore able to grasp the consequences of their actions.

Section 82 of the Indian Penal code states that no child under the age of seven can commit an offence. This is because Indian lawmakers felt that Indian children were more precocious.

Doli incapax does not usually apply to 10-17 year-olds, who are expected to know the difference between right and wrong.

In the UK, those over the age of criminal responsibility but not yet 18 (juveniles) can be arrested and taken to youth courts, and if found guilty, can be sent to special secure centres to fulfil custodial sentences.

For minor offences, Detention and Training Orders are given. These last between four months and two years. The first half is served in custody; the second half is served in the community. For more serious crimes the offender can receive an ‘extended sentence’ which can involve years of supervision once released. Offenders guilty of murder are set a minimum amount of time in custody and remain under supervision for the rest of their lives.

While India’s legal system is based on British common law, the Indian system does not make such distinctions. Crucially, there is no jury. Juries were abolished in 1960 for fear media coverage may have prejudiced them. Judges decide both the verdict and sentence.

Neither is there set protocol for juvenile crime. Though Section 1 of India’s Juvenile Justice Act (2000), defines a juvenile as anyone younger than 18 years of age, Section 15 of the Act states a juvenile convicted of any offence can be punished by being sent to a special home for the rehabilitation of juveniles for a maximum period of three years before being released on probation. The duration of the sentence is at the judge’s discretion.

Some of these ‘special homes’ in which juveniles are placed have been accused of physically, sexually and emotionally abusing the juveniles that are placed within them, and lack basic safeguards.

Unlike the UK, however, there is also provision in India for those who are not mature enough to understand the effects of their actions. Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code states if the child is aged between seven and 12 and has an immature understanding of the effect their acts have, they cannot commit an offence. The burden of proof relies on the defence, who must produce evidence to prove the child’s immature understanding.

India has seen a sharp rise in juvenile crime which is often blamed on rising inequality caused by the recent economic boom (though circumstance is not proof actions cannot be freely undertaken). The spread of poor education and persistent unemployment has been offered as an explanation for juvenile crime.

According to India’s National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there was a 40% rise in juvenile crime from 2001-2010. The NCRB says rapes by juveniles have doubled, murder is up by a third and kidnappings of women and girls have grown nearly five times during the period. More than half of juveniles who are convicted come from families with an annual income of less than $500. Most juveniles are illiterate and in poor health. Two in three are male.

This spike in juvenile crime has caused some elements of Indian society to call for the lowering of the legal age one can be tried as an adult to 16. The 17 year-old’s participation in the gang-rape has only hastened these calls, causing children’s rights campaigners to fear a knee-jerk reaction. They also fear the suspect, if found guilty, may only serve six months before being released on probation. This is because the suspect is 17 years and six months old, and adults cannot be detained at such facilities.

It is understood the Supreme Court of India has received a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) requesting for the minor to stand trial as an adult, based on his mental age rather than his physical age. The PIL argues the brutality of the crime of which he stands accused means he does not merit the legal protection given to minors. While the police claim to have evidence of the minor’s actus rea (the guilty act) and mens rea (that he intended to carry out the act), it is not the case that one can forfeit rights based upon alleged actions. To do so is a form of pre-punishment.

Strangely, this is a reverse of the defence of infancy and Section 83. The legal provision to help minors accused of crimes now would condemn them before a trial. To argue a minor’s mental age could be used to force the minor to stand trial as an adult also does not stand up in the face of international law, which has made it clear this cannot be acceptable: the committee on the UN Covention on the Rights of the Child has placed the age at which one can stand trial as an adult at 18.

India’s embarrassment over a minor’s involvement in the Delhi gang rape has made India determined never to see a juvenile accused of being involved in a crime as savage as this without the threat of serious retribution again. In its crusade, however, there are fears this exceptional case has been used as an instrument by those already calling to lower the age at which one is considered a juvenile. Such a change would rob the state of exploring all available avenues, including restorative sentences. It would also be considered wrong to change the law on the basis of one case. To do so would submit minors to a system which they are not ready to be a part of yet.

To implement a knee-jerk reaction because of embarrassment is not a correct motive for changing the law. Legal measures need to be weighed up carefully and examined. While tougher laws are set to be passed soon, a close watch is to be kept on the issues surrounding the rights of women and minors in India.

By Matthew Jones

[Image courtesy of HereStanding]