So the proliferation of mobile phones around the world has increased accessibility to online pornography.
This…PLUS terrible sex education for young people, which I think we can all agree is a pretty international problem…(*flashbacks to awkward afternoons with your maths teacher trying to explain periods to a room of giggling children*) means that, increasingly, porn is becoming a de facto sexual education for many teenagers (boys in particular).
Not only are young people learning about sex via what is essentially often extreme ‘theatre’, but they are also given no sense of what good sexual health looks like. There’s no warning or discussion of contraception, STIs, pregnancy risks, consent…etc…in porn. All they are shown is often submissive women ‘performing’ for the male gaze. Frequently without condoms.
This is dangerous.
And I anticipate this becoming an increasingly huge problem for countries where access to sexual health services is difficult and costly at best (I know of sexual health clinics where they are unaware of chlamydia, for example) and in countries where sex education is either non-existent or uncomfortable and basic (which I think might be almost everywhere).
Whatever you think of porn, I wonder if it’s about time that the porn industry took responsibility and ensured all their content came with an engaging/fun health warning, or were required to produce short sexual health and consent films for a global audience that users MUST watch before viewing… What do you think?
What do the Chairman of the Board of Nestlé, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PepsiCo and the President of the Inter-American Development Bank have in common? They’re all on the board of The World Economic Forum.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a Swiss non-profit foundation, which cites its mission as being “committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas.”
Its annual winter meeting in Davos is currently taking place, bringing together more than 2,500 top international business and political leaders, invited academics and journalists to discuss pressing global issues. In short – it’s a pretty influential set up.
So let’s take a closer look at the 24 WEF board, which is currently made up of
- Gender: 18 men and 6 women
- Employment: 12 corporate executives, 4 university academics, 4 financial insitutions, 1 Director of WEF, 1 Intergovernmental Organisation, 1 Non-governmental Organisation, 1 Queen
- Geographical location: 10 Europeans (including Russia), 6 North Americans, 6 Asians, 1 Middle Eastern, 1 South American, 0 Africans, 0 Oceanians
- Education: 22 of the 24 went to universities in the USA or EU
Many of the board members have been through the revolving doors in their careers; work for or sit on boards or advisory boards to some of the world’s most powerful corporations; have strong political and academic ties; belong to powerful lobbying, policy-making and advisory groups and a number have been implicated in accusations of corporate malfeasance during their career.
Susan George described the board as follows:
“The Davos class, despite its members’ nice manners and well-tailored clothes is predatory… They run our major institutions, including the media, know exactly what they want and are much more united and better organized than we are. But this dominant class has weaknesses too; one is that it has an ideology but virtually no ideas and no imagination.”
My source for this post is this amazing infographic which has more detailed information about the careers of the current board: http://davosclass.tni.org/. The infographic is a collaboration of the Transnational Institute and Occupy.com. They believe the World Economic Forum is fundamentally about increasing corporate profits and rewarding political elites rather than “improving the state of the world” and describe it as an undemocratic, unaccountable and illegitimate institution that, far from improving the world, has over decades reinforced the global crisis of inequality, poverty, and environmental destruction.
The Davos class are powerful, with many corporate interests and completely unrepresentative of global society – should they be responsible for such an influential forum discussing and impacting global issues?
Does anyone singing this song realise how much they (we) are part of the problem, or that the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are NOT going to fix a system that has inequality and oppression built into it?
I don’t really want to give this any more oxygen. But. Really?
This week the UK’s YouGov published the results of a poll where 44 per cent of British respondents said that the country should be proud of colonialism.
The poll comes ahead of the upcoming Oxford Union debate to decide the fate of a statue of British colonialist (murderer…racist…I could go on) Cecil Rhodes as a result of the “Rhodes Must Fall” campaign to have it removed. 59% of respondents thought that it should stay.
Whether or not you think the statue should stay or go (and there are strong arguments to leave it and have it re-labelled), what’s more disturbing is the fact that there still exists within the public discourse, a narrative that seems to feel, as Rhodes said himself that “the more of the world we [English] inhabit, the better it is for the human race.”
According to YouGov “British people are not generally ashamed of the former Empire or of our history of colonialism. Only 19% say the Empire was a bad thing and only 21% say we should regret historic colonialism.”
UKIP voters and 37% of Conservative voters say Britain tends to view our history of colonisation too negatively – we talk too much about the cruelty and racism of Empire and ignore the good that it did. Young people (40%) and Labour voters (43%), on the other hand, are more likely to say we view our colonial history too positively, suppressing the cruelty, killing and injustice that went on.
YouGov previously found, in July 2014, that British people tend to say the countries that were colonised by Britain are now better off for it (49%) rather than worse off for it (15%). And 34% even said they would still like Britain to have an Empire, while 45% said they would not.
This Guardian article pretty much nails it when it says (satirically):
“So, basically, nearly half the population thinks the Amritsar massacre, the concentration camps during the Boer war and after the Mau Mau uprising, the post-partition violence in India caused by uprooting 10 million people, and the four million deaths from famine in Bengal while Churchill diverted grain to British troops and other countries were – what? Dunno. Not things they knew about? The price of doing business? We did bring a lot of economic development to places, you know.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; Britain has a very self-centric view of the world that continues to elevate it and its people as ‘civilisers’, ‘heroes’ and ‘saviours’, and traditional ‘British’ values, culture and norms as an ideal global standard.
Throughout history this ‘British Empire State of Mind’ and resulting actions has led to the suffering of people the world over, the pilfering of resources and the destruction of our planet. The result today is this: globally we are witnessing increasing political and economic inequality and borders that are closed to people but open to money, and at home in the UK there is a pervasive and growing fear of immigration and xenophobia and racism.
Beliefs like these are exactly the reason why I’m working with a group of people to run a series of interviews and events to challenge this mentality, and why it’s more important than ever to Rethink the British Empire State of Mind. If you agree, please join us. Get in touch via the Contact page or on Twitter @devtruths.
You can read the full YouGov press release here.
What do you think? Do these results surprise you? Do you agree with the 44 per cent of people surveyed who believe colonialism was a good thing?
Mark Kersten over at Justice in Conflict writes:
The most checked-out book was entitled Immunity of Heads of State and State Officials for International Crimes.
This isn’t exactly great news for proponents of international justice and, in particular, the principle of universal jurisdiction.
Weirdly, the UN Library sort of bragged about the book on Twitter – despite the institution’s mission to, you know, fight global impunity. As Hayes Brown rightly chirped: “…Guys. Why would you brag about this [-] this is not good.” There is a silver lining, though. Clearly diplomats are taking international criminal justice seriously and evidently some (rightfully, we should add) see it as threatening. Like it or not, the possibility of heads of state being prosecuted for international crimes is indelibly part of the world of diplomacy.
The institutionalist in me agrees.
Do we want to live in a world in which…
View original post 125 more words