While they are no longer racist in the same sense now, the Democratic party was at its conception and for most of its history, completely and utterly racist. Yet anytime Democrats are almost forced to look back at some of the most immoral parts of their party’s history, they give the same excuses. Democrats claim the parties flipped in the 1960s, and it is now the Republicans who are the racists. If pressed on that claim they go even further, stating that President Lincoln, the first Republican President and the man who signed the Emancipation Proclamation and was heavily involved passing the 13th amendment, would be a Democrat today. However, when looking back at the history of the parties, it is clear that no switch ever happened, and the Republicans are as much in support of civil rights today as they were back then.
Whether you back the blue or think all cops smell like bacon, you probably agree that there is a time for violence and a time for non-violence. Across the developed world, there is a problem with police brutality. Officers are able to get away with horrendous crimes with termination, and sometimes rarely even that. The issue of police brutality transcends the borders of any one nation, and one of the causes may be a lack of sleep.
Luke David Boswell | United Kingdom
There is currently a contentious debate over whether police powers, such as stop and search, are lacking or are too powerful in the United Kingdom. The intents and purposes of these police powers are to protect the public and enforce the rules of society. However, it emerges that those we trust with our protection may be liable for the deaths of innocents. Although these cases have become headliners raising important issues within the police force, is it fair to label the entirety of the police as liable? Or is it only the “few bad apples”?
However, these powers are subject to abuse, often times by white police officers. Cases occur where they routinely stereotype minority groups in stop and search. Evidently, this suggests that stricter regulations are necessary to control the extent of the police’s power. The idea of such regulations would be to prevent the formation of systematic racism and profiling.
Stop and Search
Stop and search is one of the police’s most scrutinized and controversial powers, due to the common occurrence of innocent people being stopped and searched. Under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a stop and search are only permitted when the police have reasonable suspicion to do so. Code A (paragraph 2.2), mentions that a stop and search cannot take place when solely based on personal factors. Additionally, Code A states that the stop and search must be utilized “fairly, responsibly, with respect and without unlawful discrimination”. The goal is to prevent discrimination against civilians on the basis of race, creed, age, or appearance.
Despite these regulations, there are doubts that stop and search is on a tight enough leash. Out of the 300,000 stop and searches in England and Wales during the 2016/17 period, there were 4 stop and searches for every 1,000 white people, with 29 stop and searches for every 1,000 black people. This statistic shows that black people are 8 times more likely than white people to be the subject of a stop and search. Clearly, this demonstrates an inequality and perhaps a prejudice in who the police choose to stop and search.
However, statistics may be misleading alone. Due to government housing programmes, the vast majority of minority groups live in high crime and unemployment areas. This culminates a cycle of poverty, disillusionment with the authorities and subsequent crime.
No Reasonable Suspicion Necessary
There are, in fact, legal clauses for police to perform stop and search absent of reasonable suspicion. Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, states that the police do not need reasonable suspicion to stop and search in designated areas. A crime occurring in a specific area and the police having limited time to secure the area and all possible suspects in it would be an example of the practical beneficial use of this clause. However, this clause could also be an excuse to unjustly target an area of a certain ethnicity.
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, states that random stop and searches in ‘the fight against terrorism’ have no need for reasonable suspicion. The majority of the abuse of stop and search has occurred under this clause. In Gillan and Quinton v UK, both of the appellants were stopped and searched near an arms fair under Section 44.
Gillan and Quinton were journalists partaking in a peaceful protest against the arms fair. It didn’t help that the police did not recover anything in this search. After this incident, the appellants bought their case to the European Court of Justice. The court held that the stop and search violated the appellant’s rights. Their ruling upheld that the search was unnecessary and Section 44 did not apply.
Where is the line?
There is a very fine line that police have to walk. Powers that are necessary for protection are also easily subject to abuse. How to ensure that police do not cross the line is a pressing issue for the United Kingdom today.
71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.
By Nick Hamilton | United States
The time has finally come. CNN’s Jim Acosta has crossed the line and had his press credentials revoked by President Trump. I wrote an article back in September about this, which you can read here. I’m honestly a little surprised this actually happened. However, it was the right thing to do.
Acosta and the Press Conference
At Wednesday’s press conference, CNN’s Jim Acosta asked a question about the migrant caravan and tried to lecture President Trump on why he thinks this caravan isn’t an invasion. President Trump simply stated after that that they had a difference of opinion on the matter and that Acosta should let him run the country. Seems reasonable, right? After that, President Trump proceeded to call on another reporter, however, Acosta just wasn’t finished. Even after President Trump called on another reporter, Acosta still tried to ask questions. When a White House intern tried to take the microphone away from Acosta, he proceeded to grab onto the mic and forcefully push down on her arm.
Nevertheless, the media is portraying this incident as nothing more than an attempt for President Trump to dodge a tough question from Acosta. That is a blatant lie. Trump had already called on another reporter. There were a lot of reporters at this press conference, and I’m sure Trump wanted to get to as many as he could.
However, when Acosta wouldn’t give up the mic, the President did something that the media hated. First of all, he answered the bogus question about the Russia investigation. He then took a couple of seconds to walk away from the podium. President Trump also proceeded to, as he has done before, turn off the mic of Jim Acosta.
A Rude Reporter
“CNN should be ashamed of itself to have you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN. The way you treat Sarah Sanders is horrible. The way you treat other people is horrible. You shouldn’t treat people that way.” -Trump to Acosta
Trump isn’t wrong. As I have outlined, Jim Acosta is one of the rudest reporters in the liberal media. He consistently thinks he has the right to overpower other reporters. People don’t just lash out at him for no reason; they do so because of his lack of respect for the industry. Mark Dice, a conservative YouTube commentator, put together a short compilation of his most unprofessional moments that justify Trump’s outburst. You can view it here. CNN has claimed that Acosta is just trying to ask questions that the American people want answers to. My question to CNN, however, is that if that’s truly the case, why won’t another reporter ask them? If it is truly an important question, then Acosta is not the only person capable of asking it.
Other Media Attacks
Acosta is not the only reporter Trump has attacked this week. CNN’s Brooke Baldwin had a few choice words for the President in her daily show on CNN. Yamiche Alcindor, a journalist for PBS, tried to question Trump’s rhetoric of calling himself a nationalist at a recent Houston rally, linking him with white nationalism. I was very privileged to be able to attend that rally, and it was quite clear he was speaking only of United States nationalism; there was no mention of race or any discriminatory language. Trump has denounced the KKK and Alt-Right nationalists on many occasions. Thus, it is not surprising that such questions annoy him.
Later in the press conference, April Ryan, a CNN contributor, had the same problem Jim Acosta did; she tried to ask a question during another reporter’s time. Trump told her to “sit down,” because he was answering a question from another reporter. Nonetheless, she kept interrupting.
Then, on November 9th, as Trump was leaving the White House, reporters swarmed him. Many asked him about April Ryan: why he chose to call her “nasty” and “a loser” because of her reporting. Then, Abby Phillip, another reporter, asked Trump about Whitaker’s involvement with the Russia investigation. Trump couldn’t answer that, and said: “It’s up to him.” But then, Phillip responded by saying, “Do you want him to rein in Robert Muller?”
“What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot, and you ask a lot of stupid questions,” replied Trump.
Attacks Against Black Women?
Now, of course, Baldwin had something to say about this. But what did she choose to say? She chose to try and say that Trump was wrong for these attacks. But read closely. He was wrong to say this because they were black women. She didn’t even acknowledge what happened with Jim Acosta, a white male, who got it worse than all three of thee reporters. Why is it only bad when Trump negatively targets black female reporters?
Now, if he only ever criticized black women, then perhaps her accusations would make more sense. But, this is not the case: Trump regularly slams people of all races, removing any likelihood of racist intent.
Baldwin, thus, appears to be playing the race card. If we want to truly live in a society free of racism, it starts with Brooke Baldwin. It starts with The View and Jimmy Kimmel, who have also employed this narrative. The color of someone’s skin and someone’s gender are completely irrelevant to their journalistic ability. If you believe otherwise, then you’re part of the problem. Baldwin is trying to say that just because they’re black women, they are immune to criticism. This is true for neither them nor Acosta.
The Tucker Carlson Incident
On the contrary, let’s talk about a real attack on a journalist. This week, Antifa protesters swarmed the house of Fox News host Tucker Carlson. His wife had to hide in the pantry, and everyone on the right was angry. Why aren’t Brooke Baldwin and Jim Acosta upset with this?
Sally Kohn, a writer for CNN, did publish an article saying that the protest went too far. She deserves credit for that, as it was quite an admirable thing to do. But to Acosta and Baldwin: why are attacks only worth criticizing when they are against you? This shows a clear double standard: one that does not represent good moral faith.
Get awesome merch. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!
Within the last week, I have started college at a small liberal arts school located deep in the Virginia countryside. The demographics of this school worried me as they are overwhelmingly white and political stance is almost completely Republican. However, throughout my week and a half here, I have noticed that the freshman class that I belong to is part of the overall trend of a libertarian wave.
Intolerance Across the Spectrum
Through talking with my peers I have tried to gauge where they stand politically. In my dorm several classmates I have talked to have held firm mainstream Republican beliefs. However, after a discussion on Trump’s trade war, several of them wanted to know what my ideology was. After a brief discussion on what makes a libertarian, it is safe to say that they were somewhat hooked.
Another growing trend among young adults is an increasing embracement of the radical ends of the spectrum. For example, my roommate for this year identifies himself as a white nationalist. He believes in getting back to what he views as the roots of America. One might also call him a traditionalist, as he believes firmly in traditional gender roles. He also holds the segregationist belief in keeping people of different races apart. Of course, I personally don’t endorse his ideas, but I present them as an example of the growing trend of extremism in America.
The same thing exists on the left end of the spectrum, with the Black Power movement calling for just as bad of a power imbalance with black supremacy. This growing trend of extremism is dangerous. It often leaves those entering the political arena without a just banner to rally around. As the parties continue to drift off, compromise on key issues will keep waning. As a result, the hostility, intolerance, and vitriol that fills modern day politics will only worsen. After this toxic system sets in, there is no recourse, as America will have set its own lines of battle.
A Libertarian Future Awaits
This is why the third party vote matters. After partisanship slogs down the major parties, the third party vote will restore reason in America.
That being said, the Libertarian Party is unique, as it takes multiple forms. When America needs the third party vote desperately, the Libertarian Party will rise to the occasion. The party is very accepting of all types of people, ranging from strict believers in the Constitution to anarchists.
Ironically, what ties us together as a party is a belief in personal sovereignty. With these level-headed goals in mind, it is unthinkable that those rational people left in the middle of no man’s land will neglect a party that promotes freedom and equality. The party is the antidote of intolerance. The Libertarian Party has a bright future as more people flock to the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.