The long-term impact of the migrant crisis in Germany

The International Organisation for Migration contend that the volume of individuals living outside their country of birth has risen from 80 million three decades ago to approximately 180 million people. These vast demographic changes to a state’s population frequently result in many differing threats to the nations societal, economic, political and security structures. A key example of the negative impact interstate migration can have on a state’s status quo is the ongoing societal and political fallout to the Syrian migration crisis in Germany. Traditionally migration into Germany had been steadily increasing in accordance with global migration trends, however the ongoing Syrian civil war resulted in the state’s net migration increasing by 49% through 1 million individuals forcibly migrating into the state in 2015. Stemming from this dramatic rise in population has been a wave of political and social disturbances linked to xenophobia, crime, and far-right nationalism, leading to questions surrounding the stability of the state.

After all, despite the involuntary nature of these individual’s migration, they are often equated as security threats to the presumptive receiving state and its citizens. Primarily, this perception is formed through the idea that vast numbers of refugees will increase both the speed and likelihood of multiculturalism and the breakdown of the German identity. Consequently, in response to this belief Germany has seen a drastic increase in the distribution of anti-migrant rhetoric and has even seen its number of hate crimes targeted specifically against refugee’s double between 2014 and 2015. The overall sentiment of mistrust and fear of refugees was clearly observable during the Leipizig riots in 2016, in which over 200 right-wing extremists where arrested for various crimes linked to weapons, explosives, narcotics and the German right to assemble, thus displaying a sense of lawlessness within Germany.

Unfortunately, the actions and ideas of far-right extremist takes the focus away from the vulnerabilities and human rights of the refugees seeking asylum and gives it to concerns regarding the security of the state, resulting in increased social anxieties and instability towards migration. In this sense, it is therefore not so much the refugees directly contributing to societal tension but rather the inability to consider them not to be security threats.

Significantly, the political structures within Germany have also experienced disturbances resulting from increasing flows of refugees. Correlating with trends throughout Europe, Germany has seen an exponential rise in support for far-right nationalist parties. The Alternative Für Deutschland (AFD) who support an intrinsically anti-migrant agenda have seen their share of the national vote grow from 4.7% in 2013 to 15% according to polls in 2016, which places them as the third biggest party in Germany. The rapid growth in support for the AFD can be considered to be a societal reaction against both potential racial assimilation within the state and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to give all Syrian refugee’s the ability to apply for asylum in Germany. Although the AFD does not currently have a realistic chance of becoming the dominant party in Germany, it’s success does force the more mainstream parties to engage in uneasy and unproductive coalitions in order to prevent the AFD gaining further support. These coalitions threaten to fragment the German political landscape through the slowing of the long-term productivity of the German political system.


Reflecting upon the article, one can contend that Germany is being negatively impacted by the migrant crisis in two ways. Firstly, the increasing flows of migration into Germany has led to the formation of a xenophobic and combative society, creating instability through race riots and racial discrimination as seen in the rise in hate crimes being committed against refugees. Secondly, because of xenophobia within society the political establishment is made unstable through a rise in support for anti-immigration parties. The rise in support for far-right parties increases the pressure on the ruling party to enact more nationalistic policies, however the enactment of such policies would only serve to legitimise claims that migration should be perceived as a security issue and that refugees are a threat to national stability.

To conclude , it is worth noting that these impacts stem from negative reactions to refugees rather than the refugees themselves. In this sense, is it possible that these repercussions would not exist if there was an absence of xenophobia within society? And, additionally would there be such reactions if the hardship and human rights of the refugees were recognised and focused upon?


States or Companies? Whose responsible for the dumping of plastic into the ocean

A 2016 report produced by the Ellen MacArthur foundation studying the impact that the growing importance of plastic in global economies is having on the level of sea pollution in the region found that plastic production has increased twenty fold since 1964 and reached 311 million tonnes in 2014. Additionally, the report noted that currently the equivalent of one garbage truck of waste is being dumped into the ocean every minute and this figure is likely to double or triple by 2030 and 2050 if no action is taken. However, despite the damning evidence and blatant impact that rising levels of plastic in the world’s oceans is having on the environment there has been little to no interest in solving the crisis from the country’s most responsible:

  • China
  • Indonesia
  • Philippines
  • Vietnam
  • Thailand

These five South-East Asian countries contribute to 60% of plastic in the world’s oceans. A contribution which has been steadily rising at a time correlating with the increasing westernisation and industrialisation of the state’s economies. This correlation has slowed the process of solving the environmental crisis as there has been increasing debates as to where responsibility truly lies, as the responsible states have been keen to highlight the significant role that Western companies indirectly play in the dumping of plastic. Is it therefore possible that those directly dumping are not mainly responsible for the roughly 8 million tonnes of plastic being dumped into the ocean each year? And will the dumping continue and potentially grow if neither side is willing to acknowledge their accountability?

The core argument framing Western companies as the main culprits of plastic pollution in South-East Asian countries revolves around noting the impact the selling of cheap small products made in disposable non-recyclable plastic has on the environment. The size of the products sold by these companies is the most significant factor noted by the leaders of China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand as well as environmental actors such as Greenpeace. These states and NGOs contend that Western companies take advantage of people on low and limited incomes to sell cheap goods in small quantities without any thought for the environmental impact. The selling of goods in this manner has led to the coining of the phrase ‘Sachet economy’, and the Philippines is a great example of this, as products such as instant coffee, shampoo, cooking oil, food seasoning and tooth paste are sold in single use sachets to a country of 103 million people where the high levels of poverty minimise the financial ability of bulk buying. The problems resulting from ‘sachet economies’ are only likely to worsen as the increasing modernisation and westernisation of these states economies has led to a dramatic increase in demand for consumer products, and yet there is no interest from the western companies producing the small cheap goods polluting our oceans due to there being no acknowledgment of responsibility and financial benefit for them.


However, Western companies such as Nestle cannot be held totally accountable for the increasing rates of plastic pollution. In fact, in a 2016 report Greenpeace criticised and declared both Western companies and the South-East Asian countries as culpable for sea pollution. Using the Philippines as an example once again, Greenpeace found that 1.88 million tonnes of plastic being dumped into the ocean was in fact recyclable. This statistic becomes less shocking when one considers that 74% of plastic being dumped by the Philippines happens after the waste has been collected. In this sense, even if Western companies did improve the recyclability and size of its goods, it remains unlikely that we would see a drop-in the levels of plastic in the ocean unless collection facilities and transport systems were modernised.

This is a trend that is present throughout the five countries most responsible for dumping as on average only 50% of their total trash is collected. Therefore, a key method of improving levels of plastic in the ocean would be a modernising and expanding of garbage services, as well as closing leakage points in collection facilities, improving education on the benefits of recycling and increasing the financial incentives linked to being environmentally friendly. Should some or all of these suggestions be adopted then these five countries could reduce their plastic leakage by 65%, which would cut global leakage by 45% by 2025 at a cost of just $5 billion a year according to the Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Centre for Business and Environment. However, the determination from these South-East Asian countries to grow economically at the expense of any other concerns including environmental makes the implementation of such changes extremely unlikely.

What is therefore required is a recognition of responsibility from both the Western companies supplying one-use throw away goods and the South-East Asian countries allowing the dumping to occur. Once there has been this recognition then the childish squabbling can cease and there can finally be effective discussions about how to end this growing crisis. Yet, when one considers that financial concerns consistently trump environmental worries then the implementation of real and lasting change on the volume of plastic being dumped into the ocean unfortunately remains slim.

Can abortion restrictions be justified?

Abortion within the first trimester of pregnancy has been legal in America since 1973 due to the 7-2 decision reached within the Supreme Court case, Roe v Wade. However, with the infamously anti-abortion Republican party holding the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House, there has been renewed pressures and regulations placed on abortions at a national and state legislative level. Coupled with this has been a dramatic increase in the enactment of limitations on a woman’s right to an abortion. However, when one considers the decisions reached within Roe v Wade the legitimacy of the implementation of such limitations becomes questionable. Can abortion limitations be justified by pro-life supporters? And more importantly, can they be considered constitutional?

The primary debate between the pro-choice and pro-life supporters is whether the procedure of abortion should be considered a public or private matter. Pro-choice supporters argue that abortion is intrinsically a private matter due both to its relationship with bodily integrity and the individual’s right to freedom from governmental intervention in their private lives. The second argument is significant as it relates abortion with the right to privacy inferred within the fourteenth amendment and thus condemns any regulations and limitations as being unconstitutional.

Alternatively, pro-life supporters offer the arguably weak argument that abortion is a public matter due to the operation being conducted in the presence of a state certified medical practitioner in a regulated health facility. Therefore, they argue that increased access to abortion invariably requires more governmental regulation in order to maintain health and safety standards. Additionally, the maintenance of high health and safety standards will alleviate the risk attached to abortion, thus making it safer and lowering the chance of death.


However, it is worth noting that the continued implementation of abortion restrictions on both a state and national legislative level will likely force women into using less reputable practitioners without governmental regulation, which inevitably increases the risk of injury and death. Therefore, the argument that abortion limitations are justifiable due to both the procedure being a public matter and requirement to uphold safety standards is incorrect as the implementation of restrictions increases the threats to the woman’s health.

Equally, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade nationalised the issue of abortion, as well as drastically increased the judicial oversight given to legislation relating to privacy and abortion restrictions.  In this sense, the enactment of limitations not only becomes unjust, but also unconstitutional. Primarily, as the supremacy of the Supreme Court’s decisions means that congress cannot interpret the constitution in a way contradicting the decision in Roe v Wade. Therefore, the argument that national and state level legislation limiting abortion is justified due to them both having a right and a responsibility to regulate can be considered unconvincing.

Therefore it becomes clear that there is minimal justification for the enactment of abortion limitations. Mostly this is due to both abortion being a private matter meaning it should be free of governmental intervention, and also the fact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade legislatively outranks any decision reached on a national and state legislative level.

Are we misinterpreting lone wolf terrorism?

The well organised and intricate terrorist attacks such as 9/11 and the Madrid bombings have seemingly been replaced by much more random and frightening acts of lone wolf terrorism. Lone wolf terrorism sheds the perception of terrorism as being a group endeavour and instead highlights the potential for an individual to become inspired to commit acts of violence without the direction or knowledge of the organisation. In this sense, lone wolf terrorism is essentially all about the individual rather than the group, thus increasing the difficulty of preventing an attack. The key long lasting consequence of lone wolf terrorism is the sentiment that there are a multitude of terrorists hiding within society which results in a rise of xenophobia and religion-centred hate crimes. However, if lone wolf terrorism is the act of an individual then shouldn’t it be considered detached from both the terrorist organisation and the demographic they belong to? And if this is the case, should the investigation into these lone wolf terror attacks be centred around the individual’s mental health and whether terrorism was simply used to give the perpetrator a sense of identity and purpose?

Debates surrounding the impact that a lack of personal identity and purpose have on lone wolf attackers is split into two differing theories; psychoanalytic and non-psychoanalytic. This article will focus on the psychoanalytic theory which suggests that unconscious factors drive a person’s mental and social life and categorises lone wolf attackers as individuals which lack a personal and social identity as well as having low self-worth. The likelihood of an absence of personal identity is proliferated through the continual growing interconnectedness of states diminishing the sense of a national identity. Therefore, resulting in a vacuum surrounding personal identity which drastically increases the possibility of psychological disturbances within the individual.

In particular, a study conducted on 88 lone wolf attackers from 15 countries found the following characteristics to be present in some or all of the perpetrators; mental illness, vocational problems, high-stress levels, problems with intimate partner relationships, social awkwardness, violent communications, and high intelligence. I find that many of the characteristics noted within the study are associated with problems interacting within society, therefore contributing to the idea that these individuals lack an identity, a sense of purpose and a grounding. The absence of these feelings, coupled with psychological problems, leaves these individuals susceptible to becoming involved with terrorist organisations for the sole purpose of having a place of which to belong.


Equally, the impact of social media on the mindset of lone wolves is frequently overlooked. Outlets such as Facebook or Instagram encourage the younger generation to view their lives as an ongoing drama and conform to a certain look, culture and way of thinking. Now, should the individual not adhere to these principles, then their personal identity would be out of touch with the status quo and out of place in society.

Furthermore, the increasing use of ‘live’ features on social media as well as mass news outlets provides the perpetrator with a colossal audience for an attack which is guaranteed to provide them with worldwide attention, name recognition and global fame. These factors can be considered key motivations behind an attack when one considers the lone wolves psychological desires to have an identity, to be remembered and to matter. Therefore, violent outlets become a means for these individuals to be immortalised through social and mass media, as well as find a purpose and prove their ability to alter the normal workings of a society that they feel no personal or emotional attachment to.

In my opinion, when a lone wolf attack happens there is general sense that the reasons and motivations for the attack are limited to the terrorist organisation the individual associates themselves with. What is required is an understanding of the impact that psychological disturbances and an absence of personal identity can have on an individual. After all, despite their idiosyncratic nature, lone wolves are essentially narcissistic in nature who rather than operating for the will of the group, instead use violence as a means of punishing the society that they feel no connection to. The change I would recommend is viewing lone wolf terrorism as an incident where an individual suffering from a mental illness or a disassociation from reality and society is taken advantage of by the ideas of a terrorist organisation to find a sense of identity and purpose.


Far-right Virginia attacks: Why Trump did not single out the alt-right

In the wake of the racially-motivated violence in Virginia as well as Trump’s condemnation of the attacks from ‘many sides’, new questions and criticism have arisen about the President’s relationship with the so-called alt-right. Thought to have emerged in the wake of Pat Buchanan’s failed bid for Republican Presidential nomination in 1992, the alt-right is comprised of individuals who are frustrated by political correctness, feminism, immigration and the ‘suppression’ of the white identity. The final characteristic frequently linked with the alt-right relates the movement to groups seeking white supremacy such as the Ku Klux Klan, thus making Trump’s willingness to be associated with and unwillingness to criticise the alt-right questionable. Therefore, one must seriously wonder why Trump was not able to solely criticise the alt-right for the blatant racially motivated violence that occurred in Virginia.

Indeed, it seemed obviously out of place for President Trump to refrain from using his vicious rhetoric that we have seen so frequently through his attacks of Hilary Clinton, John McCain, mainstream journalism and fellow Republican politicians. Instead, his response to the violence in Virginia appeared vague and unwilling to give his true opinion out of fear of receiving widespread criticism or losing support. After all, Trump’s campaign as an insurgency outsider nomination was often tied and supported by various alt-right groups which most commonly were linked with white supremacy. Support from these groups as well as Trump’s tailor-made policies and rhetoric to target white Americans enabled the President to gain 63% of the white male vote and 52% of the white female vote in the 2016 Presidential election according to the Independent. In this sense, it would be unsurprising that Trump would be unwilling to singularly condemn white supremacists and risk losing their votes and support, thus framing the President as a man willing to put his career aspirations over the lives of the electorate.

830783084A second explanative factor to consider could be the President’s wish to not create further confusion and divides within his administrative staff. Although, Trump’s presidency has been marked by constant resignations or sackings of high level administrative staff, the dismissal of the disruptive Anthony Scaramucci from communications director after eleven days seemed to signify the end of the period of confusion. Therefore, when one considers the number of individuals tied to the alt-right within the Trump administration, most notably White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, it should be expected that Trump would resist outright criticising the movement. However, this argument again highlights the President’s intention to place unity within his administration over the recognition of the victims of the attacks in Virginia.

Reflecting upon these arguments, the violence in Virginia and the President’s response, one must truly question whether Trump is fulfilling the role of President. After all, as stated in the constitution the role of the President includes being the chief of state and chief citizen of all citizens of the United States. In this sense, the President is obligated to place the requirement to represent the electorate over his career aspirations and desires for re-election. Considering his comments in the aftermath of the alt-right violence in Virginia, one can conclude that Trump has failed to achieve this requirement.

Is there a stigma surrounding breast cancer in the British South Asian community?

Data collated by the American Cancer Society found breast cancer to be the second most common cancer for women, with roughly 1 in 8 developing an invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) at some point in their lifetime. Similar statistics are found within studies focusing on global cancer trends, yet there is still a sizeable stigma attached to receiving treatment for the disease in certain cultures. In fact, recently a multitude of news outlets have reported there to be cases where the victim has died from breast cancer due to a reluctance to seek diagnosis and medical help. In this sense, one must question how a stigma can exist that is seen as so socially damaging that it comes before the victims own health or on the other hand the desire to protect and ensure the survival of a family member or friend.

In Britain, the South Asian community is most frequently associated with carrying a breast cancer stigma. Primarily, the stigma attached to breast cancer comes from perceiving the disease as a taboo subject culminating in a lack of understanding about the causes, symptoms and treatments associated with an IDC. The minimal knowledge surrounding the disease enables the spread of incorrect and stigmatising cultural and religious beliefs which make women less likely to seek diagnosis and medial help. Most commonly, the damning religious belief found within the South Asian community in the UK is that the finding of a cancerous lump is due to that individual living a sinful life and thus God is punishing her.

Widespread support for this belief likely results in an increase self-misdiagnosis of breast cancer as a skin abnormality in order to avoid the idea that God is punishing you, as well as a rise in depression amongst those diagnosed with breast cancer due to feeling deserted by both their community and their religion. In this case it should be considered unsurprising that a report conducted by Bridgewater NHS in 2015 found South Asian women aged between 15-64 years had a significantly reduced survival rate for breast cancer.

A final influencing factor on the stigma attached to breast cancer to be considered is the impact of the cultural expectations of how the wife and family should be. Principally these expectations are related to the marriage prospects of both the children and the patient. In the case of the children, the lack of widespread knowledge about cancer means that it is perceived as a certain cause of death for any future generations who are directly linked to the original patient. In this sense, admittance and seeking medical help for breast cancer has detrimental ramifications for the marriage prospects of the children.

Furthermore, the importance placed upon purity extends to the wife as well as the children with there being multiple reports of an unwillingness to go for smear tests due to fear of being considered defiled by the community. These two consequences further highlight the extreme and long-lasting implications of breast cancer stigma within the South Asian community in the UK.

Seemingly the main cause of breast cancer stigma in South Asian community’ in the UK is the absence of factual knowledge about the disease enabling the spread of cultural and religious beliefs. Therefore, one must question whether increased funding for teaching and training about how to spot breast cancer and the dangers of it would have an immediate impact on the rates of South Asian women surviving the disease?

The cost of the war on drugs in the Philippines

Rodrigo Duterte was elected President of the Philippines through the votes of 16 million Filipinos who bought into and supported his law and order campaign message. The promise Duterte built his campaign around focused upon tackling Philippines growing drug problem through viewing the lives and human rights of users and dealers as disposable.

President Duterte outlined his approach during his inaugural address when he vowed to ‘slaughter these idiots for destroying my country’, and has since enabled the assassination of more than 6,000 people by law enforcement agencies, paramilitary groups and vigilantes as well as claiming to have killed people himself. The legitimising of using murder as a tool to tackle a social problem has thrown the Philippines into a state of lawlessness, and although Duterte’s approval ratings remain a steady 83%, there is a notable increase of pressures on the state’ political system, infrastructure, and human rights record because of the war on drugs.

Impact on state’s political system and reputation

President Duterte’s bloody war on drugs has negatively impacted the politics of the Philippines both domestically and internationally. In a domestic sense, there is clear evidence that the Duterte administration deliberately inflated the estimated numbers of drug users in the country in order to utilise the fear vote within the electorate. Furthermore, Duterte’s ‘blind eye’ to the killing of drug users and dealers has led to mass corruption and the planting of evidence within the police force with no consequence. The lack of action taken to curb the volume of murders committed in the name of the President’s war on drugs has resulted in a wave of criticism from political opponents and the international community which has been met by Duterte in a less than politically correct manner.

In fact, it is Duterte’s response to the aforementioned criticism that is perhaps the greatest threat to the Philippines political system, as instead of answering the calls for accountability, the President has initiated a campaign against political enemies centred around harassment, intimidation and imprisonment. A key example of this was the framing and subsequent arrest of former secretary of justice Senator Leila de Lima on politically motivated drug charges as well as Duterte’s threats to kill human rights activists and assassinate journalists.



In response to international criticism Duterte has adopted a different approach revolved around vulgar rhetoric and the denouncing of other world leaders and organisations. Most notably, despite the Philippines close relationship with the US as well as its reliance on American aid, former US President Barrack Obama was called a ‘son of a whore’ who should ‘go to hell’ after suggesting Duterte should deal with the drug problem ‘the right way’.  Equally, Duterte reportedly told the European Union to ‘Fuck Off’ when they requested an end to the extrajudicial killings of drug users and dealers. The undertaking of such an approach only further harms the Philippines reputation as well as highlight the unwillingness of the government to address the mass killings of civilians.

Impact on infrastructure

A number of drug users or dealers found by the state police were imprisoned rather than executed, however this has placed extra pressures on the state’s prison systems and has again highlighted the absence of human rights granted to those arrested. Data provided the Philippines government indicates that jails within the state currently hold 132,000 detainees who are awaiting trial or sentencing, despite the fact that facilities have a maximum capacity of just 20,399. The overpopulation within prisons has proliferated pre-existing issues regarding inadequate food and unsanitary conditions, as well as lead to an increase in violence between inmates as rival drug gangs are frequently situated in the same block.





President Duterte’s response to the lack of adequate infrastructure has been typically limited to the extent that a 10,000-bed treatment and rehabilitation centre opened in December 2016 was funded solely by the Chinese government. However, it should be noted that the treatment centre shortly fell into international disrepute by using physical and emotional abuse as the only means of treatment. As a consequence, there is a lack of interest from the international community to fund rehabilitation and prison facilities until the Philippines begins operating within the universal declaration of human rights.

Impact on human rights record

The rate of roughly 33 killed for every 1 person injured makes President Duterte’s campaign the most-deadly drug war in history. As previously mentioned, more than 6,000 have been killed by enforcement agencies, 2,000 of which were in ‘self-defence; during anti-drug operations, according to the police. A claim which becomes utterly questionable when one considers the widespread corruption within the police as well as the fact that many of those dead have been found in horrific circumstances such as being bound and gagged, faces being wrapped in masking tape, and being piled up under bridges or even on the street. Evidence such as this suggests that not only is murder legitimised but also the torture and humiliation of those captured.

 In response to this there have been continuous and growing calls for President Duterte and his administration to be investigated by the international criminal court on the basis that his war on drugs constitutes a crime against humanity. The foundations of this belief comes from the absence of trials given to suspects, the torturing of victims as well as the mass killing of civilians giving the impression that Duterte is cleansing his state. Characteristically Duterte’s response denounces these claims by labelling foreign lawyers as ‘idiots’ who use ‘bullshit’ threats to influence the domestic politics of the Philippines, thus implying that the killing and torturing of civilians will continue.

To conclude, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that President Duterte’s bloody war on drugs will end. Alternatively, it is likely that Duterte will use his high approval ratings as a justification for the expansion of the war as well as a means to purge and silence his political opponents. Therefore, one can argue that without international intervention the murdering of civilians and their imprisonment in subhuman overcrowded prisons will continue at least till the end of Duterte’s presidential term.