1. C O N T R O V E R S Y I N L A W
D I C T A2 0 1 6

3. N E D K E M P [ E d i t o r - i n - C h i e f ]
S H Y M A M U K R E D [ M a n a g i n g E d i t o r ]
T R I S TA N G O O D M A N [ E d i t o r ]
J O H N W U [ E d i t o r ]
S A R A L O U D E N [ E d i t o r ]
T H E E D I T O R S
“ D o n ’ t j u s t f l y , s o a r . ” - - D u m b o ( 1 9 4 1 )
‘ C o n t r o v e r s y i n L a w ’ i s u n d o u b t e d l y a p r o v o c a t i v e t h e m e f o r t h i s y e a r ’ s e d i t i o n o f D i c t a .
H o w e v e r , i t m u s t b e e m p h a s i s e d t h a t o u r p u r p o s e i s n o t t o s i m p l y p r o v o k e . O u r p u r p o s e i s
t o g e n e r a t e a w a r e n e s s a s a v e h i c l e f o r p r o g r e s s . P r o g r e s s m u s t b e g i n f r o m a p o i n t o f t r u t h .
F i n d i n g t h i s t r u t h n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e s a c c e p t a n c e b y e m b r a c i n g b o t h o u r s t r e n g t h s a n d
w e a k n e s s e s w i t h o u t e x a g g e r a t i n g n o r d o w n p l a y i n g e i t h e r . I u r g e y o u , t h e r e a d e r , t o v i e w
t h e f l a w s i n o u r s y s t e m n o t w i t h s c o r n o r d i s t a s t e , b u t w i t h a v i e w o f h o p e . T h e s e f l a w s
a r e n o t s t u b b o r n s t a i n s i n t h e f a b r i c o f o u r s o c i e t y . T h e y a r e t h e r a w m a t e r i a l s r e q u i r e d t o
b u i l d t h e b r i d g e w h i c h l e a d s t o a m o r e f u l f i l l i n g f u t u r e . T h e y r e p r e s e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r
i m p r o v e m e n t o f o u r l e g a l s y s t e m f o r t h e b e t t e r m e n t o f o u r s o c i e t y . O u r d e s i r e s h o u l d b e
t o b r i n g a b o u t c h a n g e t h a t i s m o t i v a t e d b y c o m p a s s i o n r a t h e r t h a n c o n t e m p t . C o m p a s s i o n
f o r o u r s e l v e s w h i c h g u i d e s u s t o w a n t t o i m p r o v e o u r w a y o f l i v i n g . O n l y t h e n c a n r e a l a n d
l a s t i n g c h a n g e o c c u r .
W h a t i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n a N o r t h K o r e a n d e f e c t o r a n d a S u p r e m e C o u r t J u d g e ?
P r o b a b l y m o s t t h i n g s , y e t b o t h f e a t u r e i n t h i s y e a r ’ s e d i t i o n o f t h e D i c t a M a g a z i n e . V a r i e t y o f
m a t e r i a l h a s b e e n e q u a l l y m e t w i t h d i v e r s i t y o f o p i n i o n , s e r v i n g t o i l l u s t r a t e a n a m o r p h o u s
l e g a l l a n d s c a p e t h a t i s u p f o r g r a b s . E d i t i n g b e c o m e s a d i f f i c u l t t a s k w h e n w e b e g i n t o
w o n d e r i f w o r d s m a y e v e r a d e q u a t e l y d e f i n e t h i s s h a p e s h i f t i n g r e a l i t y . I s u p p o s e t h i s i s t h e
p r o b l e m o f c o n t r o v e r s y , a n d w h y w e m u s t c o n t i n u e t o c h a l l e n g e o u r l e g a l s y s t e m s .
I t i s m y h u m b l e w i s h t h a t D i c t a c a n p l a n t t h e s e e d o f i n t e l l e c t u a l c u r i o s i t y i n i t s r e a d e r ’ s
m i n d , t o q u e s t i o n t h e l e g a l n o r m s a n d n o t b e a f r a i d t o q u e s t i o n h o w t h e l a w s h o u l d
d e v e l o p . B e i n g a p a r t o f D i c t a a n d w o r k i n g a l o n g s i d e a f a n t a s t i c g r o u p o f e d i t o r s h a s
b e e n a n i n c r e d i b l e h o n o u r o f m i n e . I a m e x t r e m e l y i n d e b t e d t o D i c t a f o r t h e p h e n o m e n a l
e x p e r i e n c e s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , I a m t h a n k f u l f o r t h e f r i e n d s h i p s t h a t w e r e f o r g e d a l o n g t h e
w a y . I t h a s b e e n a h u m b l i n g a n d e n r i c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e w h e r e I h a v e l e a r n t m a n y v a l u e s
f r o m m y f e l l o w c o l l e a g u e s . M a n y t h a n k s m u s t o f c o u r s e , g o t o t h e E d i t o r - i n - C h i e f ( N e d ) ,
w i t h o u t w h o m t h i s e d i t i o n o f D i c t a w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n p o s s i b l e . “ F e a r , u n c e r t a i n t y a n d
d i s c o m f o r t a r e m e r e l y c o m p a s s e s t o w a r d s g r o w t h ” – d o n o t b e a f r a i d a n d I s i n c e r e l y w i s h
t h a t y o u w i l l r e l i s h t h e a r t i c l e s t h a t w e h a v e i n t h i s e d i t i o n o f D i c t a . C a r p e d i e m .
W e b s t e r ’ s D i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s c o n t r o v e r s y a s a n ‘ a r g u m e n t t h a t i n v o l v e s m a n y p e o p l e w h o
s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e a b o u t s o m e t h i n g . ’ T h i s y e a r ’ s e d i t i o n i s n o t m e a n t t o m a k e y o u f e e l
g o o d o r v a l i d a t e y o u r o p i n i o n s ( a l t h o u g h y o u m i g h t g e t s o m e o f t h a t ) . I t i s i n s t e a d m e a n t
t o m a k e y o u c o n t e m p l a t e , q u e s t i o n , c h a l l e n g e a n d b e c h a l l e n g e d . I b e l i e v e i t w i l l d o j u s t
t h a t . I t h a s b e e n a p l e a s u r e w o r k i n g w i t h t h e w r i t e r s a n d e d i t o r s w h o h a v e m a d e D i c t a 2 0 1 6
a s u c c e s s .

4. P A D D Y O ’ K A N E [ E d i t o r ]
C A S S I E B L O W E R [ E d i t o r ]
J A C O B M O R G A N [ E d i t o r ]
L E I L A G O R D O N [ E d i t o r ]
E S H N A J E E B A U N [ E d i t o r ]
T H E E D I T O R S
T h e t h e m e o f D i c t a 2 0 1 6 w a s s p e c i f i c a l l y c h o s e n t o e n c o u r a g e a l l w r i t e r s a n d r e a d e r s t o
t h i n k o u t s i d e o f t h e i r c o m f o r t z o n e , t o c h a l l e n g e t h e s t a t u s q u o , t o c o n t e s t t h e b e l i e f s o f
o t h e r s a n d m o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , t o q u e s t i o n t h e i r o w n v i e w s . W e h o p e y o u f i n d t h e i s s u e s
d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s y e a r ’ s m a g a z i n e n o t p r o v o c a t i v e , b u t t h o u g h t p r o v o k i n g . T h a n k y o u t o
a l l t h e w r i t e r s a n d e d i t o r s w h o h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d t h i s y e a r , a n d e s p e c i a l l y t o N e d , w h o s e
d e d i c a t i o n a n d e n t h u s i a s m h a v e m a d e t h i s e d i t i o n o f D i c t a p o s s i b l e .
A s w i t h m o s t g r e a t t h i n g s , D i c t a 2 0 1 6 b e g a n i n t h e p u b . N o w t o s e e i t i n i t s f i n a l f o r m , i s
s o m e t h i n g p r e t t y s p e c i a l . H o u r s o f h a r d w o r k h a v e g o n e i n t o m a k i n g t h i s i s s u e g r e a t a n d
I w o u l d l i k e t o t h a n k N e d , m y f e l l o w e d i t o r s , m y t a l e n t e d w r i t e r s , a n d a l l t h o s e w h o h a v e
c o n t r i b u t e d i n s o m e w a y t o t h i s i s s u e f o r t h e i r h e l p a n d d e d i c a t i o n . A n i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f
b e i n g a l a w s t u d e n t i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e l a w d o e s n o t e x i s t i n a v a c u u m , a n d t h e
d i v e r s e c o l l e c t i o n o f a r t i c l e s y o u a r e a b o u t t o r e a d e x e m p l i f y j u s t t h a t . E n j o y .
T h i s y e a r ’ s D i c t a t h e m e o f c o n t r o v e r s y i n l a w m a d e f o r i n t e r e s t i n g r e a d i n g a s a n e d i t o r .
T h e a r t i c l e s I w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r a n g e d f r o m a f r e s h t a k e o n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l l a w
s u r r o u n d i n g G M O S t o a t o n g u e - i n - c h e e k p i e c e o n a l c o h o l p r o h i b i t i o n . T h e r e w e r e a l s o
c r i t i c a l c o l u m n s o n h i g h l y t o p i c a l i s s u e s s u c h a s t h e t u m u l t u o u s s t a t e o f U S g u n l a w
a n d t h e m a j o r i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e u p c o m i n g B r e x i t r e f e r e n d u m . I l e a r n e d t h a t t h e s e B r i s t o l
l a w s t u d e n t s f r o m a l l l e v e l s a r e r e b e l l i o u s , i n d e p e n d e n t - m i n d e d a n d , a b o v e a l l , d e e p l y
e n g a g e d w i t h t h e w o r l d . I h o p e y o u e n j o y r e a d i n g t h e m a g a z i n e . I k n o w I e n j o y e d w o r k i n g
w i t h a l l t h e d e d i c a t e d e d i t o r s a n d w r i t e r s i n v o l v e d .
I t i s e a s y t o f o r g e t , w h e n s u r r o u n d e d b y f r i e n d s a n d f a m i l y w h o t h i n k s i m i l a r l y t o u s , t h a t
o t h e r v i e w s d o n ’ t n e c e s s a r i l y h a v e t o b e ‘ b a d ’ o r ‘ w r o n g . ’ C o n s i d e r i n g – a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g
– d i s s e n t c a n o n l y m a k e o u r o w n t h o u g h t s m o r e e n g a g e d a n d w e l l - r o u n d e d . I h o p e y o u n o t
o n l y c o n s i d e r a n d u n d e r s t a n d t h e o p i n i o n s r a i s e d b y t h i s y e a r ’ s w r i t e r s , b u t u s e t h e m t o
s t r e n g t h e n y o u r o w n a r g u m e n t s .
“ I d o n o t a g r e e w i t h w h a t y o u h a v e t o s a y , b u t I ’ l l d e f e n d t o t h e d e a t h y o u r r i g h t t o s a y
i t . ” T h i s q u o t e ( s l i g h t l y d r a m a t i c i n t h e p r e s e n t c o n t e x t , I c o n c e d e , b u t n o t a s p i q u a n t a s
s o m e o f o u r a r t i c l e s ! ) o f t e n c a m e t o m i n d w h e n e d i t i n g s o m e d r a f t s . W e a s k e d o u r w r i t e r s
t o b e c o n t r o v e r s i a l a n d a l l o f t h e m b r i l l i a n t l y d e l i v e r e d o n t h a t p o i n t . T h i s y e a r ’ s e d i t i o n
l e d t o i n t e r e s t i n g d e b a t e s a m o n g s t u s e d i t o r s – a r e a c t i o n w h i c h I h o p e w i l l b e m i r r o r e d
b y o u r r e a d e r s h i p . D i c t a a l s o g a v e m e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n t e r v i e w N o e l ‘ R a z o r ’ S m i t h , a n
e x - c o n v i c t a n d a c c o m p l i s h e d a u t h o r , w i t h S a r a , a n d I h o p e t h a t y o u f i n d h i s i n s i g h t i n t o
t h e B r i t i s h j u s t i c e s y s t e m a s f a s c i n a t i n g a s I d i d . I w o u l d l i k e t o t h a n k e v e r y o n e – w r i t e r s ,
e d i t o r s a n d t h e l o g i s t i c s t e a m – f o r t h i s e n r i c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e . H a v e f u n d i s a g r e e i n g a n d
d e b a t i n g s o m e o f o u r a r t i c l e s !

5. O N E f r e e s p e e c h
T W O E U , m o v e m e n t o f p e o p l e & i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t u d e n t s
T H R E E t e r r o r i s m , r e l i g i o n & w a r
F O U R p r i s o n
F I V E c y b e r s p a c e & t e c h n o l o g y
S I X c r i m e & j u s t i c e
S E V E N l i f e , s e x & s e x u a l i t y
E I G H T b u s i n e s s & c o m m e r c e
N I N E l a w & p o l i t i c s
C O N T E N T S
p4
p16
p31
p49
p64
p85
p97
p121
p138

6. V O L U M E N o . 1
F R E E S P E E C H

7. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
Does it shackle political speech?
5
When asked to respond to Hilary
Clinton’s criticism that he was “part of the
war on women”, Donald Trump stated: “I
don’t have time for political correctness”.
Referencing weakened trade-links with
China, and losing to Mexico “over the
border”, Trump wished to instil in viewers
an overwhelming sense of the USA’s
gradual decline. Political correctness was
apparently a battle that America could not
afford. However, the reality is that political
correctness is not a battle; it is peaceful
negotiations that avoid wounding in the first
place.
The Oxford Dictionary defines political
correctness as ‘the avoidance of forms of
expression or action that are perceived to
exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of
people who are socially disadvantaged or
discriminated against’. More commonly,
however, it is used as a pejorative term by
the likes of Trump, saying things like “PC has
gone mad” and that it “limits conversations”.
Critics of political correctness, such as
Trump, assume that those offended by
a poor choice in words are being overly
sensitive and that, because the speaker’s
intentions were not consciously malicious,
their language should not be forcibly
changed. For instance, Trump claims, “all of
the women on The Apprentice flirted with me
– consciously or unconsciously… that’s to be
expected.” Making this statement, one can
hope that his intentions were not to flippantly
undermine and degrade every woman on
the US Apprentice, yet his carelessness
achieved just that.
We should recognise that public figures,
like Trump, have a huge political platform.
Trump’s rash and ill-considered comments
could affect discourse surrounding women
in business on a mass scale, encouraging
the already male-dominated section of
society to appear exclusionary. Notably,
women currently hold only 4.6 percent of
Fortune 500 CEO roles.
Having good intentions when you are
egotistical, ignorant, and - terrifyingly
- making a bid for power is, therefore,
no excuse when truly harmful results
emerge.
When harmful consequences are deep in
the past, the necessity of exhuming that
historic pain in an attempt to apologise is,
perhaps, more contentious.
During his visit to the scene of the 1919
Amritsar Massacre, David Cameron said
it would be wrong to “reach back” into
history. As a result, he refused to apologise
for the shootings ordered by the British Raj,
assuming that there was nothing to gain by
reopening old political wounds.
That said, Cameron must have understood
the gravity his attendance carried; he was
the first serving UK Prime Minister to visit the
site where up to 1000 innocent Indians were
shot dead. Regardless of when it happened,
Cameron is the current leader of the British
Government and, as such, is first in line to
account for past British atrocities. Whilst
the current government obviously does not
condone the massacre, the point remains
that there is no one else alive today with
the power to offer an apology with similar
significance and meaning.
By publically refusing to apologise on
behalf to the past British Government,
Cameron turned his visit to the site
of the massacre from one of respect
into an insulting display of narrow-
mindedness.
Modern atrocities, however, are perhaps
the most difficult to navigate and respond
to without creating upset and harm. The
French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo
consistently makes fun of the Jewish and
Muslim communities, which are observably
marginalized within French culture.
Examples of religious marginalisation within

8. 6
all religious symbols being banned from
public spaces, including the Hijab. When
a magazine run by predominately, white,
atheist, privileged men then makes jokes at
the expense of a culture that is not valued or
protected within that society, the joke is no
longer funny: it solidifies intolerant rhetoric.
The reactionary slogan to the January 2015
Charlie Hebdo shootings – “Je suis Charlie”
– further homogenized French culture,
oppressing ethnic minority voices who
did not share the sentiment. Attempting
to reduce the extensive complexity
of French multicultural history into
one easily tweetable statement is, by
definition, the opposite of political
correctness. It prioritized convenience
over truth and complexity. Those who did
not identify with the slogan were slandered
with the label of “un-French”. In essence, the
same white, atheist, privileged men defined
what it was to be French for the whole of
society.
President Hollande, as the French leader,
had an opportunity to stop the increased
hostility towards Muslim and Jewish
communities after the shootings. Instead, he
called for a mass demonstration, stating: “We
must all stand together at this difficult time
[…] We must show we are a united country”.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hollande chose to
ignore that the Kouachi brothers, to many
French citizens, represented France’s
societal duality. It was strongly implied that
anyone who does not condone the kind
of images Charlie Hebdo publishes – the
Prophet Mohammad crouched on all fours
with his genitals bared, for example – is
fragmenting France. Here, there seems
to be a perversion of human rights,
whereby there is a duty to offend.
In this way, Hollande prioritized a simplistic,
homogenous approach over genuine
harms to minority French communities and,
by extension, prioritized white mainstream
opinions over nuanced, oppressed and
silenced opinions.
The media response to the more recent
attacks on Paris globalized this emerging
rhetoric and the corresponding erosion of
minority voices. The short-term Facebook
profile picture filter of the French flag made
many people question why there was no
filter that represented the lives lost in any
other country affected by IS; Facebook
appeared to only react when Western lives
were at risk. Additionally, what was the
purpose of the French flag filter? To tell your
Facebook friends that you think killing is
wrong? That you were thinking about the
victims of the attack, but only “temporarily”,
as was the nature of the profile picture?
Mainstream French rhetoric has now
captured the whole of Europe. What started
as an extension of freedom of speech
has actually led to the silencing of many
minority cultures, with leaders, like Hollande,
condoning this power imbalance.
Illustration by Ned Kemp
Having good intentions, as Donald Trump
claims he has, is important. However, if you
do not care that someone is truly hurt by
your actions or words, your objectives clearly
were not as good and as pure as originally
claimed. Similarly, if a simple apology has the
ability to begin to heal the lasting wounds of
a historically abused people, the decent and
the sensible thing to do is to apologise – as
David Cameron should have done. What is
truly abhorrent, however, is when modern
atrocities are used to mask intolerance and
to seize political advantage, as the Charlie
Hebdo writers and Hollande have appeared
to do.
Ultimately, political correctness is about
trying to be the kindest and most selfless
version of oneself. To achieve that, we must
ask ourselves three questions: Do I have to
say this? What will I gain from saying this?
What will others lose?
These questions are particularly important
when a person possesses influence and
power, and thus has the ability to pervasively
shape political discourse. Having political
leaders who are considerate of minorities
and oppressed voices should be a priority.
Politicalcorrectnessdoesnotexisttoshackle
the freedom of speech, but to open the
door to a truly considerate and thoughtful
discussion that involves everyone.
By Ellie Drewry

9. Getting the Hatchet
Defamation, libel and free speech in England
and Singapore: are they worlds
7
In his immortalized interview from 1995, Lee
Kwan Yew of Singapore notably proclaimed:
“I was my own carrier of a hatchet. I needed
no hatchet man.” Of course, Lee was not
admitting to carrying a small axe. Instead,
the “hatchet” he claimed to personally wield
“against subversives” was the law that he
had “inherited from the British”. This warning
– more like a threat – highlighted an era of
libelous action by Prime Minister Lee, all
under the blanket of defamation suits, to
silence any aspersions made against his
character.
Before we raise a disapproving
eyebrow, let’s first remember that
the Island Nation owes the majority
of its laws to England and the
Commonwealth. We may wonder,
therefore, whether there exists the very real
danger that English defamation laws may
also be unduly prioritizing claimants.
Litigants in the UK have the opportunity to
abuse defamation law to bolster their public
image and to silence opposition. Because
most libel suits can accrue legal costs in
the thousands, being served with one may
be financially devastating to defendants
who don’t stand on equal financial ground
with the claimants – unless they were, as
Dr Matthew Collins puts it, “wealthy or have
nothing to lose”. Simply put, fighting a libel
case does not make financial sense to
most laymen, placing wealthy individuals
and public figures at an advantage,
giving them a platform to quash negative
accusations on the basis that they contained
libelous content. In its mollycoddling
of industrial and political Goliaths,
English libel has put its people at risk.
Indeed, English courts are commonly
recognised as claimant-friendly forums for
defamation suits. There are multiple reasons
for English defamation law’s historical
tendency to accept cases on arguably minor
grounds: the rampant proliferation of ‘no win
no fee’ solicitor agreements with claimants,
and the difficulty in proving the defendant
had ‘fair comment’ to speak (as opposed to
the courts of the U.S. presuming innocence
unless provided with proof of ‘actual
malice’) stand out in particular. Prior to the
Defamation Act 2013, this had created a
system where the needs of the injured party
are prioritized, at the cost of defendant’s right
to free speech.
Nonetheless, the International Libel and
Privacy Handbook notes that Singaporean
law imposes an even higher fault when
the defamation relates to politics, more
so than the United Kingdom. In a nation
ruled continuously by a single party since
its inception (of whom Prime Minister
Lee served as its face), and whose sole
broadcasting house is indirectly state-run
(Mediacorp, responsible for both television
and the printed press, and owned entirely by
the government-run investment company,
Temasek Holdings), the consequences of
silencing the vox populi can be a great and
powerful problem indeed.
The modern era has done little to change
that, as can be seen in the ongoing case
of Roy Ngerng, who insinuated that the
current Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong,
had diverted money from a national fund
for private use. When the allegation proved
to be untrue, the Prime Minister pressed
the courts to obtain a “very high” sum in
damages from Ngerng.
There is also the case of political critic
J.B. Jeyaratnam who insinuated Lee’s
involvement with the corruption scandal of
one of Lee’s party members. Jeyaratnam
notably filed for bankruptcy in 2001, unable
to afford nearly one million SGD in damages
that he owed to members of the People’s
Action Party.
With the ever-looming threat of a
financially draining suit, this political
climate might have created a nation
too nervous to speak out against
their politicians for fear of legal
action.
apart?

10. 8
A similar climate of censorship exists in the
UK, but one targeted towards the press, to
the point where Ian Hislop (editor of Private
Eye) can claim to be the “most-sued” man in
the United Kingdom. Likewise, media mogul
RobertMaxwellwasnotoriouslylitigiousinhis
lifetime towards the newspapers. In his claim
against Private Eye, it was posthumously
discovered that he had, indeed, siphoned
money away from his company pension
funds, as had been claimed. Whilst Private
Eye’s case might not be news, it still acts as
a classic example of how freedom of speech
is silenced to uphold the image of certain
influential individuals.
More recent is Lord McAlpine’s case, in
which Sally Bercow insinuated (but never
directly mentioned) his involvement in
historical sexual abuse. Whilst Bercow’s
inability to back up her insinuations is
not irrelevant, focus should be placed on
McAlpine’s threats to sue, not only her, but
also everyone sufficiently prominent (with
over 500 followers) who ‘retweeted’ her text
post – stretching the ambit of defamation
dangerously wide.
The 2013 Defamation Act has attempted to
narrow this gap by introducing the necessity
that the defamation has caused “serious
harm” to the plaintiff. Also, on the Reporters
Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index, the
United Kingdom scored #34 out of #180,
higher than even America at #49 (and
Singapore at #153).
This success is short lived, however, as
the Crime and Courts Act 2015 may make
defendants pay for the full costs of any libel
suit (regardless if they win) – a potential bane
on the climate of press freedom in the UK.
Looking at the laws of a country is a crude
determination of the freedom of expression
its citizens enjoy, however. One must also
consider the social phenomena of self-
censorship. This is most visible in self-
regulatory methods like NUS’s ‘No Platform’
policy, which denies specific controversial
individuals and groups from speaking
or campaigning on a student-controlled
platform.
But self-censorship need not always be
“visible”. For instance, we may consider
the Telegraph’s refusal to publish cartoons
of the prophet Mohammed in the wake of
the Charlie Hebdo incident. While it may
not be illegal to do so, many in the UK fear
widespread social backlash for publishing
offensive material of this kind. As the
Electronic Frontier Foundation warns, this
is a sense of self-censorship that is just
as bad as being offensive: “The attack on
Charlie Hebdo was an attack on individuals
exercising their free expression right… but we
must not sacrifice some rights in a rush to
protect others”.
Overly zealous censorship is at its worst in
courts, as seen in the recent case of James
Rhodes. Rhodes was prevented from
publishing his autobiography by a court
injunction filed by his ex-wife, out of fear the
sexual assault in it would distress their son.
This case suggests a heightened concern
for public decency, as well as a more evident
culture of fear and political correctness, in
the United Kingdom. Singapore’s society
no longer seems like a far removed
reality.
With a rampant culture of self-censorship,
made worse by easily accessible libel courts,
the United Kingdom is in danger of having
a libel system that favours plaintiffs over the
needs of free speech.
The Singaporean system proves, however,
to be as problematic, if not probably worse.
However, hatchets only have power if a
hand is holding them – legal censorship is
only effective in a society that allows it to be
practically enforceable. By slowly cultivating
an environment of fearless self-expression in
the press, and reforming libel law to be less
favorable to claimants, we can work towards
allowing the vox populi to finally speak the
truth.
By Nicolette Lee

11. Britain First: The Voice of
Limiting freedom of expression makes for a
limited society
9
There is no legal limit on the freedom
of the religious expression. In practice, we
should be able to express whatever religious
belief we hold, and offence lies not in what
we say but with those who choose to take
insult. Articles 9 and 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
states that freedom of speech and religion
are limited for the ‘protection of health and
morals’, but there is no health system or
moral order which would limit either; it states
that the freedom of speech and religion
are limited as is ‘necessary in a democratic
society’, but no democratic society would
set limitations on religion.
The qualifications of the ECHR don’t,
in themselves, detract from the
possibility of absoluteness.
Ever since the drafting of the ECHR, Britain
was unwilling to give unconditional value to
Convention rights. Lord Chancellor Jowitt
complained that the Convention was “so
vague and woolly that it may mean almost
anything”; David Cameron, in referring to the
European Court of Justice’s (ECJ’s) ruling in
Hirst v UK (No 2), described the possibility
of implementing the Court’s decision and
giving prisoner’s the right to vote as making
him “physically ill”. What’s more, we mustn’t
forget that it wasn’t until 1998, with the
introduction of the Human Rights Act (HRA),
thatthegovernmentshowedanywillingness
to take Convention rights as fundamental
principles held against all other law.
The HRA, being itself both lacking in legal
backbone and at the mercy of the rampant
Conservative government, looks set for
demise. In the legal cavity emerging, it
is (perhaps bizarrely) Britain First who
represent the freedom towards which we
should all aspire.
It is all too frequent in today’s ‘tolerant’
society that the mainstream media are quick
to condemn those who speak out about
religion. This was the case on the 15th July
2014, when self-styled battalion, Britain First,
forced entry into south London mosques,
demanding religious concessions from the
Muslim community and handing out copies
of the Bible. Their argument: that Islam “is
wrong, it is unnatural and the British people
do not want it.”
Many were quick to jump on the bandwagon
of condemnation, claiming such beliefs
were harmful and undermined democracy
and societal morality. It is this characteristic
that makes Britain First such an interesting
case study - they sit near the verge of inciting
legal action on charges under the qualifying
conditions provided in Articles 9 and 10.
Such prima facie condemnation is based on
an inherently arrogant and misguided self-
belief: those who criticise such behaviour are
performing an act of moral praiseworthiness
whilst standing up to intolerance and hatred.
This is, in fact, entirely incorrect. Brendan
O’Neill points out, in a speech to the Oxford
Union, that the notion of censorship and
limitations on speech breeds “the poisonous
notion that humans are fragile and therefore
our speech and our relationships must be
monitored and policed”.
We may question, what of extremism? What
of those views expressed by Britain First
that we scorn and wish to censor, or any
other extremist view? The Huffington post
argues, “we cannot help… [but] detect the
McCarthyist undertones in the proposal
to create blacklists and exclude and ban
people deemed to be extremist”. We may
infer that an exclusion of extremism is,
in fact, extremist.
So, it seems, that attempts to limit individuals
or groups like Britain First, be they religious
or anti-religious, breed a more harmful
environment of poisonous intolerance than
the acceptance of the absolute right to
religious expression.
That being said, I wouldn’t begin to propose
that Britain First are correct in their analysis
Freedom

12. 10
on their website’s homepage (it’s worth
a read). “The word ‘racism’”, they claim,
“was invented by a communist mass
murderer, Leon Trotsky, to silence European
opposition to ‘multiculturalism’, so we do not
recognise the validity of this made-up word.”
With the obvious political bias put aside,
there is a clear case in favour of such a view
in the light of religion and free speech.
Besides institutional issues, racism, sexism
and all other matters of offence exist as
systematic interpretations of a principle to
whichtheindividualchoosestotakeoffence.
For example, one knows in one’s heart that
‘racism’ is a ‘morally wrong’ concept, thus if
an expression qualifies as ‘racist’ then one
is inclined to deem it morally wrong a priori.
Offence, thus, could be labeled as a ‘right’;
something that we could assert in situations
where we feel that right is being infringed
upon.
However, Baroness O’Neil warned in the
annual Theos Lecture on Religion and Belief
that “any supposed right not to be offended
would founder on the fact that offensiveness
is subjective, and would put others’ freedom
of expression at the mercy of the sensibilities
of any possible audience, including
audiences who may include some who are
hypersensitive, paranoid or self-serving —
or worse.” By choosing to take offence, we
insult the value of expression.
If offence being subjective is harmful and
advised to be discarded, what is offence?
How can we justify that impassioned
emotion we feel when another criticises
our religion, race, sexuality, political beliefs
and so on? An obvious counter-argument
to subjectivity is objectivity, that offence is
inherent in particular phraseology regardless
of our interpretation of it.
This is not as ridiculous and obscure a
claim as it might first appear. In fact, it is
religion’s claim to objectivity which sparks
such difficulties in the first place, and I limit
this accusation to no one particular religion.
Pope Francis, on a flight from Sri Lanka to the
Philippines, said that “one cannot provoke,
one cannot insult other people’s faith, one
cannot make fun of faith”. Likewise, Craig
Biddle, in an article titled ‘Religion vs Free
Speech’ for the Objective Standard, argued
that “on the premises of religion, the Islamic
militants are correct: there is no right to free
speech”.
For reasons already shown, this is an
inherentlypoisonousconceptandisinsulted
by Britain First, who resemble a complete
rejection of social and political correctness.
On this basis, Islamophobia isn’t objectively
offensive, nor can offensiveness be intrinsic
to the sensitivities of an individual.
Offensiveness, thus, is a meaningless choice.
Islamophobia would be no worse than
censorship, an example of which being the
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006; those
who abuse fundamentalist preachers are no
more mistaken than the accused.
Recent events - the Paris attacks and the
bombing of Syria and Iraq - are increasingly
marginalised. Webrandthosewhoprejudice
the Islamic faith equating to barbarism as
“racists” and those who protect controversial
religious values as “terrorist sympathisers”
(DavidCameronreferringtoJeremyCorbyn’s
opposition to the bombing of Syria). We are
left with a queer environment of conformity,
forcing beliefs to occupy a middle-ground
of ‘acceptability’. What we can express is
restricted by the sensibilities of those who
deem their own fragile opinions as equating
to a right to limit the views of others. This is
neither democratic nor morally acceptable,
and remains the biggest insult to religious
expression we have seen in generations,
only worsening the longer it takes society to
admit that the problem even exists.
Thus, the freedom of religious expression
is so near to an absolute right that, in all
practical circumstances, it is in fact absolute.
With the ECHR in doubt, it comes down to
our own willingness to uphold an absolute
right. For facilitation, I suggest stripping
away any qualification imposed on Articles
9 and 10.
Any attempt to limit a particular
religious discourse insults the very
right to religion, and Britain First are
thegroupattheforefrontofprotecting
against the poisonous ideologies
which attempt to derogate classic
liberal ideals of religious expression.
As Brendan O’Neill insightfully argued, “the
right to offend… is the heart and soul and
lungs of the freedom of speech.”
Whether it’s handing out Bibles in Mosques,
using the poppy symbol and Lee Rigby
to fundraise, or announcing support for
US Republican hopeful Donald Trump’s
proposed ban on the free movement of
Muslims, Britain First are rarely far from the
front page of the news. Only next time you
read the array of insults hurled their way,
remember that each critic only adds fuel to
the fire that is slowly but surely burning away
the freedom of religious expression.
By Tom Duck

13. Tongue-tied: Freedom of
Speech in Singapore
Untying the knot – Assessing the case for
a uniquely Singaporean construct of free
speech
11
Having reached its 50th year of
independence, Singapore has much
to celebrate. The country boasts
unprecedented economic success, easily
tops global rankings in fields such as
education and healthcare, and has some of
the lowest levels of crime, unemployment
and corruption in the world. It is nothing
short of a picture perfect portrayal of a
modern democracy. Ergo, its poor standing
in surveys on levels of free speech, as well
as the immense criticism it has received
from global human rights organisations
and activists for its treatment of the right to
free speech stands out like a sore thumb.
Is this solely a matter of relativity of rights
– that Western notions of free speech are
not equally applicable to Singapore, or is
the country’s approach to free speech truly
questionable?
First, the age-old debate of universalism
versus cultural relativism vis-à-vis human
rights – particularly the right to free
speech – must be considered. The former,
universalism, is the notion that human rights
are ubiquitous and should apply to every
human being. In contrast, cultural relativism
is the notion that human rights are culturally
dependant and cannot be made to apply
across different cultures. Putting this in the
context of freedom of speech, the issue at
hand is whether the same construct of
the right to free speech can and should
be applied universally – and specifically,
to Singapore.
Freedom of Speech around the world –
Safeguards and Restrictions
For the most part, the Western notion of
free speech is accepted as synonymous
with the international standard. While
decidedly difficult to pin down, the Western
notion considers freedom of speech to be
a sacrosanct right, with restrictions to be
construed narrowly and with discretion.
Here, the value accorded to freedom
of speech is indisputable. Freedom of
speech is acknowledged as fundamental
in the development, dignity and fulfilment
of individuals, and necessary for good
governance as well as social and economic
progress.
Nevertheless, freedom of speech is
internationally recognised as a qualified
right, rather than an absolute right.
Governments around the world restrict
freedom of speech with varying limitations
relating (but not limited) to defamation,
incitement, obscenity, pornography, public
order and public security. To illustrate: the
United Kingdom has a ban on threatening
and abusive speech; the Unites States
bans speech that would lead to “imminent
hate violence”; Canada and Denmark both
ban anything that is dubbed insulting or
degrading; Germany disallows speech
which “maliciously degrades or defames” a
group, as well as Holocaust denial. Clearly,
Singapore does not come under scrutiny
simplybecauseitrestrictsfreedomofspeech,
but rather, in relation to where it draws the
line between the legally acceptable and
unacceptable exercise of free speech.
In Singapore, the right to free speech is
protected by Article 14 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Singapore. In the same
Article, exceptions to the right to free speech
are set out, with free speech restricted where
“it is deemed necessary or expedient …
[for] security [,] public order or morality [,]
contempt of court, defamation, or incitement
to any offence.” As a general proposition,
the Singaporean government is willing to
restrict freedom of speech to a degree that
would be impermissible in Western nations.
Moreover, while restrictions are construed
narrowly in the West, they are arguably given
broader interpretations in Singapore.
Cultural Relativism – A Singaporean
take on Free Speech
The government claims cultural relativism,
propounding the idea that Singapore is
inherently different from Western countries
and ipso facto, applying the same construct
of free speech is illogical and ill-fitting.
Perhaps the most cogent reasoning for the
assertion of cultural relativism is the palpable
sense of ‘Asian’ values in the country. Asian
values – which can be described as neo-
Confucian or Communitarian – place social
interests above individual rights. It is argued
that Singapore’s prohibitive restrictions on
free speech serve the purpose of protecting

14. 12
these very social interests – by ensuring political
stability as well as racial and religious harmony.
Singaporeans themselves can be said to endorse
this ideology, having given the ruling party mandate
to take such actions in every election since the
country gained independence. Taking these into
consideration,itisdifficulttomaintainthatSingapore’s
construct of free speech is wholly unreasonable. In
fact, the case for a uniquely Singaporean construct
of free speech – accounting for cultural relativism –
becomes a tad more convincing.
Freedom of Speech in Singapore – Risks and
Concerns
Unfortunately, it is often the case that those who
most forcefully argue for the contextualisation and
culturalisation of human rights are the same people
who are found to egregiously violate them. Therefore,
in propounding the notion of cultural relativism in
relation to the right of free speech, the government
must ensure that it does not fall into the trap of
violating the rights of its citizens. The right balance
must be maintained between protecting
Asian values and ensuring individuals’ right to
freespeech.One major issue, however, threatens to
upset this balance.
ConcernariseswhenfreedomofspeechinSingapore
is not restricted on wholly valid grounds or even to
protect Asian values, but rather for largely political
motivations. Criticisms range from the prevalence
of censorship and media control to the faults of
the Sedition Act. Of particular interest, however, is
the allegation that defamation laws are wielded as
political tools to suppress dissidents and political
opposition. Examples are aplenty. Those deemed to
have besmirched the reputation of the government
and run afoul of defamation laws include opposition
politicians (J.B. Jeyaretnam, Chee Soon Juan),
publications (International Herald Tribune, Far
Eastern Economic Review), journalists and authors
(Alan Shadrake, Lee Kin Mun a.k.a. mrbrown), and
even ‘ordinary’ citizens (Roy Ngerng, Amos Yee). In
itself, this issue attracts a great deal of controversy.
The match in the powder barrel is the bold rejection
of the public figure doctrine in New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan and the premise in Lingens v. Austria that a
politician “inevitably and knowingly lays himself open
to close scrutiny of his every word and deed … and
he must consequently display a greater degree of
tolerance”. In fact, the public figure doctrine is turned
inside out in Singapore, and politicians are awarded
far higher damages in defamation actions than
ordinary citizens. S. Jayakumar – a former Singapore
politician, lawyer and diplomat – justifies such
defamation suits as a necessary and “established part
of Singapore’s political culture that seeks to maintain
a high standard of truth and honesty in politics”. All
the same, the extensive use of defamation suits by
the Singaporean government paves the way for a
risky situation, where commentators may be minded
to question whether the government is abusing the
use of legislation for its own gain, and whether due
regard is being given to Singaporean’s right to free
speech.
Unfortunately, the musings of commentators are the
least of Singaporeans’ worries if the government is
indeed restricting free speech for political purposes.
A grave issue, however, is the creation of a vicious
chilling effect. That is to say, the legitimate threat of
defamation suits has stifled the full expression of
political opinion in Singapore. Never mind this is
perilous; continued lack of the freedom to express
oneself affects freedom of thought – which is an
exceedingly sinister proposition. As observed by Sue
Guiney, “People who are not encouraged or allowed
to express their thoughts publicly, either by speech
or writing, become people who stop thinking their
own thoughts. A society without freedom of speech
is not a society full of people living their lives, thinking
their own thoughts, but frustrated by not being able
to express them. A society without freedom of speech
becomes a society full of people who do not think at
all, and as the generations go by, it becomes a society
full of people who do not even know how to think.”
In a society that values intellectualism and growth, is
it not counter-productive to entertain such a chilling
effect?
Another issue to be considered – with respect to the
restriction of free speech for political motivations –
is that the legitimacy of Singapore as a democracy
will be diminished. This is in view of the fact that
freedom of speech plays a key role in underpinning
democracy. As argued by Alexander Meiklejohn,
an informed electorate is key in a democracy and
in order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there
must be no constrains on the free flow of ideas and
information. If those in power are able to manipulate
the electorate by withholding information and stifling
criticism, democracy will not be true to its ideal.
The Future of Free Speech in Singapore – A
Balancing Act
From creating a pernicious chilling effect to
compromising democracy, it is apparent that
freedom of speech cannot be restricted for political
motivations. Justifying such restrictions on grounds
of cultural relativism will prove difficult. Therefore,
the government must not take the premise of
cultural relativism as license to be highly restrictive
or to use the restrictions for political purposes, for
that is frighteningly similar to the modus operandi
of oppressive regimes. Having said that, it must be
acknowledged that Singapore remains – true to its
roots – a country with deep-seated Asian values. The
Western notion of freedom of speech cannot, then,
be used as a “one-size fits all” mould.
As the celebrations for Singapore’s Golden Jubilee
come to a close, it is hoped that the country will
take particular care in ensuring that it satisfactorily
balances the protection of Asian values and the
protection of individuals’ right to free speech.
By Thiyana Ilangchizian

15. Escaping North Korea
An Interview With Hyeonseo Lee
13
Hyeonseo Lee is a graduate student, a
published author and a TED Talk speaker.
She is also a North Korean defector. Having
grown up believing that her country was
“the best on the planet”, it was not until the
great famine of the 90s that she began to
wonder. Eventually escaping to China at the
age of 14, Hyeonseo began a life of hiding
as an illegal immigrant, becoming “the girl
with seven names”. Nearly twenty years
on, she is now living in South Korea, as an
advocate for fellow refugees. Hyeonseo’s
story is a powerful reminder of those who
face constant political persecution, as well
as a warning to those who may one day be
caught unawares.
Q. Growing up in North Korea, you
were taught that North Koreans are
the greatest people in the world. Since
leaving North Korea, you know this to
be otherwise. Yet, do you think North
Koreans can achieve greatness in the
near future, or at least in your lifetime?
Yes I believe it is possible. Even though we
lack a normal education, many defectors still
are able to succeed in South Korea and have
even achieved advanced degrees abroad.
North Korean people are hardworking,
intelligent and determined, we just need a
normal environment that doesn’t require us
to spend countless hours memorizing the
fake history of our leaders. Defectors are
also playing a critical role in sending money
and outside information into North Korea,
which is helping to change the country from
the inside. We will also be bridges between
North and South Korea upon reunification,
so we have very important things to achieve
in our lifetime.
Q. Having risked your life to escape
North Korea, do you find it perplexing
that foreigners are paying to travel
there?
Yes, foreign tourists are generating much
needed foreign currency for the regime,
which helps to maintain the system of loyalty
and oppression. These tourists may believe
they are helping to “engage” the North
Korean people, but it’s not an effective way,
and it can actually be counterproductive.
North Koreans can get in trouble for trying to
talk to a foreigner about anything sensitive,
and the North Koreans who tourists meet
in Pyongyang are part of the elite, with little
incentive to change the system.
Moreover, tourists are used as propaganda.
They are required to bow to the large statue
of our first dictator, Kim Il-sung, and these
images are used by propagandists to show
North Koreans that foreigners come from all
over the world to pay homage to the Dear
Leader. This is an effective brainwashing
technique for the North Korean people,
who think that if foreigners are making a
pilgrimage to respect the leader, North
Korea’s supremacy must be true.
Q. Being a public activist against a
dictatorial regime, are you not worried
aboutyourownsafety?Ordoyouthink
that your status as an international
activist deters the North Korean
government from pursuing you?
Yes I’m worried because the North Korean
regime has gone after defectors before,
including the assassination of a high-
level defector in the past, and more recent
assassination attempts. The South Korean
authorities warned me after my Ted talk and
other appearances that I could be in danger,
including possible kidnapping. They have
offered me 24-hour police protection, but I
rejected that because I don’t want to live my
life in fear. I continue to speak out because I
know it is the right thing to do, and I believe it
can help create positive changes.
Q. Having had to adapt to life in China
and South Korea, what was the most
difficult part of your identity crisis?

16. 14
Perhaps the most difficult aspect was hiding
my identity even in South Korea. I thought
that I would be able to live freely, but some
South Koreans have prejudice against North
Koreans, and for us it is difficult to get jobs or
other important things in society if people
hear our North Korean accents. I was so
surprised that after hiding my identity in
China for so long, I had to hide it once again
in South Korea. Finally, I decided to stop
hiding my identity despite any prejudice or
negative consequences. This was one of the
best decisions I’ve made in my life.
Q. Do North Koreans think that their
right to live is given to them by the Kim
regime?
Yes we essentially believe this because
we were brainwashed to believe that the
outside world is full of hostile forces that
want to attack our peaceful little country.
We learned that Kim Il-sung performed
superhuman feats to defeat the Japanese
and American imperialist forces and that
the Kim dynasty continues to protect North
Korea today. That’s why we have to pledge
our total and unquestioning loyalty. If we
don’t, the authorities can take our lives away,
so it is true that the regime gives and takes
life.
Q. In the West (or throughout the
world more generally), we are living
in a technological ecosystem defined
by a culture of surveillance. Does the
increased monitoring of people by
their governments worry you in light
of its effects in North Korea?
There is a complex network of spies among
the citizens in North Korea. My mom was
under suspicion by the authorities in the
past so they told our neighbor to spy on her,
which she did for a long time before finally
confessing to my mom. The authorities also
inspect our homes and we have to criticize
ourselves and each other at school or work
meetings, so there is very strict monitoring
in North Korea. One major difference is that
since North Koreans don’t use the Internet,
there isn’t a detailed search history for
companiesorgovernmentstobuildpersonal
profiles of each person, which is possible in
many other countries in the world. Ironically,
in this regard, North Koreans may actually
have more privacy due to the country’s
technological backwardness.
Q. Having grown up under a regime
that vehemently oppresses freedom
of thought and expression, have you
found it difficult to adapt to living in
a world where those rights are now
more freely available?
It is hard for North Korean defectors at first
in free societies because we are used to
having all of our decisions made for us.
There are such limited opportunities for
advancement in North Korea and they are
all contingent upon devotion and loyalty
to the leader and system. So North Korean
defectors are overwhelmed when we can
choose so many different paths in a free
society. But I wouldn’t trade this freedom for
any comfortable government job in North
Korea. The freedom that we have allows us
to develop ourselves and find out who we
really are. This is one of the most valuable
things that I could ask for.
Q. What happens to people who speak
ill of the North Korean regime? What is
the process in the prosecution of these
people?
People know that they cannot speak out
against the regime since their entire family
and possibly three generations of the family
can be sent to a prison camp. This is what
happened to my friend’s father, who simply
told his friend that the system is unfair. In the
middle of the night, he disappeared along
with his whole family and nobody saw them
again. This is the system of fear that the
regime uses to keep control.
Q. Do you think that North Koreans
are enslaved by the regime? Are
there any group(s) of people that can
do whatever they want to (i.e. not
enslaved)?
Yes we are certainly slaves because we are
brainwashed and forced to follow a terrible
system that produces poverty, human rights
abuses and death. We cannot even start
our own businesses freely because the
government does not want a free market to
flourish. If this happened, the regime would
lose its power, so we are like slaves working
at the moribund state-run jobs, generating
income that helps the elite and forces most
North Koreans to struggle.
There is a tiny elite that can do certain things
like access the Internet and travel without
restrictions, but they are still slaves to the
system. Only those who escaped North
Korea can be freed from their shackles of
slavery.
Q. In the long term, do you think that
tourism will be beneficial to North
Korea?
No, as I mentioned above, there are
many reasons why tourism is actually
counterproductive. It gives money to the
regime, and tourists can only go to certain
areas that the regime allows them to see.

17. 15
This creates a misleading picture for some
tourists who come back and proclaim that
North Korea is not that bad. These people
should ask their North Korean minders to
let them explore the rest of the country next
time. Then they might truly understand.
Q. To circumvent UN sanctions, North
Korea, in part, appears to be making
up this deficit by sending tens of
thousands of North Koreans abroad
to work under conditions that amount
to forced labour. In light of this, do you
think economic sanctions are a viable
route of resolution?
To some experts, sanctions are considered
ineffective and a relic of the Cold War era.
But I support targeted sanctions on specific
members of the regime and specific entities
that the regime uses for WMD proliferation
and other illegal activities. Also, the North
Korean elite spends money on luxuries
while average North Koreans are hungry
and suffering. Then the North Korean regime
asks the outside world for aid money. This is
completely outrageous and unacceptable.
Until the regime feeds its people, we should
continue sanctioning luxury items and
certain other goods that benefit only the
elite.
Q. You have spoken quite a lot about
Human Rights violations in North
Korea and, notably, spoken to high-
ranking officials of the UN and various
human rights organisations. What do
you think is holding them back from
helping and what do you think they
can do better to help?
The North Korean regime has been abusing
human rights for so many years, but only
in recent years has there been a big push
in the international community to make
some positive changes. One important
achievement was the United Nations
Commission of Inquiry (COI) report on
North Korea, which formally documents the
vast human rights abuses by the regime.
Since more defectors are speaking out and
sharing their stories, more people are paying
attention and starting to care. We need to
continue using this momentum to make
more progress. Making progress inside
North Korea is very difficult, but there are a lot
of opportunities to help North Koreans stuck
in China or North Korean defectors in South
Korea who are struggling to adjust to their
new lives.
Q. If there is one human right you wish
North Koreans could have, what would
it be; and why?
I really wish North Korea would grant the
freedomoftravelbecausesomanydefectors
are heartbroken that they cannot see their
families again. Nobody should have to stay
in one place like a slave in the 21st century.
North Koreans need the opportunity to leave
the country for economic reasons and to see
their separated family members
Q. Do you think that the use of military
force by a foreign power is a viable
solution to liberate the North Korean
people?
No, this is not a good option because North
Korea could destroy Seoul and many other
South Korean cities, as well as causing other
regional chaos. We need a peaceful solution
to North Korea’s human rights abuses. One
of the most effective options is to continue
changing the country from within so that
people awaken from their brainwashing and
stop supporting the leadership. Combined
with outside pressure, especially from China,
the regime could be forced to liberalize and
reform. That would be a crucial first step
toward eventual reunification.
Q. What do you think is the best way
of getting information/news across to
the North Korean people?
Smuggling DVDs and USBs across the long,
porous border with China seems to be the
bestwaytogetalargequantityofinformation
into North Korea. The North Korean regime
could never stop all of the goods coming
legally and illegally from China, so it is not
too difficult to send information across the
border. We need to donate money to pay
people to smuggle this information not
only across the border, but throughout the
country.
Q. If readers are to take one point from
this interview, what would you like it to
be?
North Korean people have been suffering
human rights abuses for so long, but only
in recent years has the world really started
to pay attention and care. Your support has
been crucial for catalyzing certain things
like the United Nations COI report. Please
continue to share our stories widely and
consider getting involved directly with one
of the many organizations that helps North
Korean people.
Thank-you to Hyeonseo Lee and the
Asia Literary Agency for making this
insightful interview happen.

18. T H E E U , M O V E M E N T O F P E O P L E A N D
I N T E R N AT I O N A L S T U D E N T S
V O L U M E N o . 2

19. The ‘Brightest and Best’ – A
Tilted Playing Field
How the emerging immigration policies
targeting international students are turning
globalization backward
17
The conservative government is under
pressure to reduce net migration. This is
a situation that has arisen partly from their
bold but ultimately futile promise to reduce
net migration to 100,000. The Migration
Statistics Quarterly Report records net
migration at 330,000 in the year ending
March 2015 - a far cry from the government’s
target. Setting such an unattainable goal
effectively led to irrational, unfair and often
discriminatory immigration policies being
implemented to reach that target. One
particular group consistently being targeted
is international students; the immigration
rules regulating their stay in the UK are
becoming increasingly restrictive.
Home Secretary Theresa May tabled a
Statement of Changes in Immigration
Rules in the House of Commons in July
2015, eliminating the right of international
further education students (those in post-
secondary education that is not part of
an undergraduate or a graduate degree)
to work part-time during their studies. In
addition, they will not be allowed to apply for
work visas at the conclusion of their studies
unless they first leave the country. Minister of
Immigration James Brokenshire said these
changes will “ensure the UK maintains a
highly competitive offer and continues to
attract the brightest and best international
students.” Business Secretary Sajid Javid
went even further, stating, “We’ve got to
have a system that doesn’t allow any abuse
where people are using the right to study as
a way to achieve settlement in Britain… once
they’ve had their studies and completed
that, then they leave.” This makes it clear,
from Mr. Javid’s perspective at least, that
not even the ‘brightest and best’ are to be
given the opportunity to participate in the
UK labour market and contribute to the UK
economy. This is not only insulting towards
international students, but also economically
unsound.
The phrase ‘brightest and best’ has
been repeatedly used by ministers in
relation to international students. This is
a useful, economically-sound test, but
the government’s legislative take on the
immigration rules for international students
is actually counter-effective to recruiting
the ‘brightest and best’. The phrase itself
is ill-defined and vague. What constitutes
‘brightest and best’? What are its standards?
Who determines them? Martin Doel, chief
executive of the Association of Colleges, said
“A-levels and international foundation year
courses represent legitimate study routes
for international students with many going
on to successfully complete degrees at top-
ranking universities.” Also, students may
choose to attend an institution because it
hosts a specialist course with an outstanding
reputation. Many of the UK’s top business
schools are housed in newer institutions and
not in the Russell Group. Studying in a further
education institution does not immediately
eradicate an international student’s calibre
of being ‘brightest and best’.
The new immigration rules are based on
prejudicial dichotomies between ‘further
and higher education students’, and
‘local and international students’. These
dichotomies are unnecessary and unfair.
Firstly, categories are artificial – why do we
have to be bound and ruled by categories
anyway? Secondly, the nature of the new
changes to immigration rules is xenophobic.
Although xenophobia is not per se
recognised in English law, racism is illegal
civilly by the offence of racial discrimination
and criminally by racially aggravated
offences. The government, rightly, wants
to reduce net migration. However, with free
movement of EU citizens enshrined in Article
21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU), the government
has more freedom to act in relation to people
from non-EU countries, and thus it clamps
down aggressively on non-EU immigration.
The net result is that the immigration policy
discriminates against non-EU students,
who are well-trained, and is biased in favour
of Europeans, who may be relatively low-
skilled. According to the Office for National

20. 18
Statistics Labour Force Survey, 1.27million
EU workers have arrived in Britain since
1997. Of the 1.27 million, 750,000 are in roles
defined as low-skilled by the Government’s
MigrationAdvisoryCommittee–thatisnearly
60%. An NUS survey in 2014 has found that
of over 3,100 international students, more
than 50% stated that the UK government
is unwelcoming. The reason behind
xenophobia is that the right-wing parties
fear that international students will take
British workers’ jobs and cause shortages
in resources, leading to an unbearable
social strain. This is not true; rather, it is a
made-up excuse in support of an unfair and
unsound immigration policy. International
students do not steal jobs, they help fill up
essential skill shortages. Arthur Marwick,
Professor of History at the Open University,
points out that, “The British, at the best of
times, are a xenophobic people. For their
part, the immigrants had long-standing and
deeply felt cultural and religious traditions of
their own. To hope for integration, let alone
assimilation, was perhaps to hope for too
much.”
Thirdly, the new immigration rules reflect
the UK’s reluctance to recognize socio-
economic rights. Although the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights 1948 cited
social welfare rights without distinguishing
them from civil and political rights, socio-
economic rights are conventionally
considered to be in a lower category of
human rights. International students should
have the same basic human rights as other
students to seek employment and work after
their studies. Also, freedom of movement
should be accessible to all, restricting it
means people are not recognized as fully
autonomous persons who have the right to
self-determination. However, with the new
immigration rules, the UK government is
restricting international students’ freedom
of movement by barring them from making
autonomous decisions as to where to stay.
Moreover, restrictions on immigration are
not only restrictions on the human rights
of international students, but they are also
restrictions on human rights of UK citizens.
When international students are excluded
from the UK, citizens are also denied their
freedom of choice to associate with, learn
from, or to employ those students. The
implementation of new immigration rules
is seen as the government’s instrument of
domination and power, relying on theories
of state sovereignty; it oppresses rights and
freedoms by trying to place the supposed
interest of the state in having strict migration
control over the interests of the individual.
In an era of globalization, one cannot
simply legislate migration away.
The UK should recognize the fact that all
students are global citizens. We are part of
an emerging world community in which
we are interdependent. Governance
should be increasingly conducted
beyond the parameters of the nation-state.
International students who stay on make
important cultural, economic and academic
contributions to the UK. Data from the
Department for Business Innovation and
Skills suggests that international students
contribute over £7.9 billion per year to the
UK economy and education sector. Seamus
Nevin, head of Employment and Skills Policy
at the Institute of Directors said, “Restricting
talented workers from staying on in the UK
would damage business and lead to a loss of
important skills. Shutting the door to highly-
trained international graduates at a time
when our economy needs them most would
be hugely damaging for UK businesses.”
British entrepreneur and inventor James
Dyson wrote in The Guardian: “Our borders
must remain open to the world’s best. Give
them our knowledge, allow them to develop
their own and permit them to apply it on
our shores. Their ideas and inventiveness
will create technology to export around
the world.” Creation of competition for
innovation among local and international
studentswouldbeabetterandmoresuitable
approach to ensure that the ‘brightest and
best’ are retained.
By Sharon Leung

21. The Effect of the Migration
Crisis on International
Students
What is the government actually achieving
by imposing tighter immigration controls on
international students?
19
As if the legal struggles of studying abroad
were not complicated enough, the migration
crisis in Europe has not reflected well on the
population of foreign students in the UK,
leading to major changes in the way Tier 4
(student) visas are regulated.
The public apathy towards non-UK nationals
has increased, fueled by the general shift
towards the political right. Now that most
tabloids are talking about the migration
crisis, even the most ignorant have made
up their minds about ‘the foreigners’. They
are apparently taking over your country,
spreading their culture, and ‘stealing’ your
jobs, your university places, your benefits.
ButinrealityhowdoestheBritishpubliceven
define an ‘immigrant’? Is it the people fleeing
Syria and other war zones, desperately
looking for safety? Or is it international
students in schools and universities
‘undermining’ educational experience for
the British students? An article in Express
goes as far as stating that the influx of
migrants has become a “threat to [British]
children’s education” and does not specify
whether the apparent problem is a result of
refugees or international students in general.
The ambiguity surrounding the term
‘immigrant’ reflects the public’s misinformed
perception of the migration crisis. It has to
be pointed out that international students
and refugees are very distinct groups of
‘immigrants’ whose terms of entry and
residence in the country are governed by
different immigration rules.
However, what is more worrying is that the
government’s approach is unappreciative of
the distinction between the refugees caught
up in the migration crisis and international
students. In fact, their response to both
groups seems heavily disproportional in
comparison to the impact that immigration
actually has on the UK. Theresa May seems
to be rushing to “bring net migration down
to the tens of thousands”, as set out in the
Conservative Party manifesto. Yet, this
attitude appears overly dramatic when,
according to the June 2015 report from
the British Refugee Council, the number of
refugees in the UK has reduced by 76,439
since 2011, down to 117,161 from 193,600.
Indeed all the claims about Britain being
a ‘magnet’ for swarms of immigrants are
actually a myth. According to Eurostat, only
25,870 people sought asylum in the UK as
compared to 97,275 refugees accepted in
Germany or 68,500 in France. Of those 25,
870 asylum claims made for the UK, only
39% were accepted.
The government’s approach to international
students is not any friendlier than their
attitude towards refugees. Conservative
MP and Business Secretary Sajid Javid
said earlier this year that Britain should aim
to avoid “a system where some people
see studying as a motive to settle in Britain
and that is their only motive”. It seems as if
the government treats students coming
to study in the UK from abroad as no more
than privileged refugees. Recent elimination
of work rights after graduation for non-EU
students shows that Mr Javid is not alone in
hoping to discourage international students
from seeking employment in the UK after
the completion of their studies. The most
shocking change to the immigration laws
regulating the entry and stay of international
students in the UK, which came into force
in early November 2015, concerns further
education students. Per the new provision,
these students will not be permitted to apply
for a work visa at the end of their course

22. 20
unless they first leave the country. Not
only does this limitation sound strange
and artificial, but it would also prove to be
very inconvenient for any aspiring student
hoping to actually use her/his well-earned
degree to its full advantage.
As a result of the migration crisis, the
government seems to be focusing on
decreasing the level of immigration (despite
the UK not being a major target for asylum
seekersinEuropeinthefirstplace).However,
in practice this is resulting in reforms that will
have a significant impact on legal migrants,
who will be discouraged from coming to stay
in the country.
It is not fair that the migration crisis
influences the government’s attitude and
policies towards international students.
Politicians hide behind the claim that they
pass tough immigration laws to maintain the
high standard of living in Britain, which the
Secretary of State, Phillip Hammond, claims
is being corrupted by the “marauding”
immigrants. Yet, policy-makers do not
understand the demographics of student
experience – it is impossible not to settle
into British life if you want to have a fulfilling
university career and enjoy all aspects
of your education. Indeed, the Business
Secretary is mistaken in assuming that every
international student’s aim is to intrude upon
British life. After all, international students
come to British universities to work hard in
order to achieve the best results, so shouldn’t
that be rewarded, rather than punished?
The next question that arises is: who
should be prioritised, migrants from
war zones or ambitious international
students? If one was to let go of any
sentimentalargument,internationalstudents
areinfactconsiderablycontributingtotheUK
economy. Students contribute to the British
economy not only through extortionate
university fees - in the 2017/2017 academic
year, international students will have to pay
£15,600 a year for arts courses while clinical
courses will cost them £35,000 for the year
- but also through the skills they can bring
to the UK labour market post-graduation.
The British government itself estimated in a
report on International Education, that in the
academic year 2011-12 alone international
students contributed £3.9bn in tuition fees
excluding scholarships, and £6.3bn in living
expenses. It then becomes unfathomable
that the government should make cuts on
international student numbers simply in the
context of the migration crisis.
The migration issue is being misunderstood
by both the government and the public, and
it has been blown out of proportion due to
the numerous myths about the migration
crisis. As the Conservatives rush to pass
anti-immigration legislation, they do not
appreciate the effect that these law have,
not only on international students, but on
the UK economy as well. Making it harder
for international students to find jobs forces
bright students to return to their home
country, which results in a direct loss for the
UK, which could have benefitted from their
knowledge and skills.
By Anna Andreeva

23. The Refugee Crisis is Worrying.
What Are the Consequences for
Europe?
21
One of the main causes of the refugee crisis today
is the four-year civil war that is destroying Syria. The
consequences are such as to cause one of the biggest
mass flights of people ever seen in the modern Middle
East. Statistics are alarming: four million people have
fled Syria. The ongoing violence, abuses, and poverty
are leading people to look for new lives elsewhere. The
picture is such that most refugees find it difficult to find
hope in returning to their country because of never-
ending war. The complexity of the situation makes it
difficult for European countries to find a solution to their
overflowing borders. Europe is accepting more refugees
and this might be problematic for the future. National
security and stability within the European countries seem
to be put at stake.
Countries such as France, the United Kingdom, and
Germany are at the center of attention. Germany receives
by far the most asylum applications in the EU and is
expecting 800,000 refugees to arrive this year. France has
pledged to accept 24,000 refugees. David Cameron has
told Westminster that the UK will be taking up to 20,000
Syrian refugees over five years. For years, the EU has
been struggling to harmonise its asylum policy, a difficult
task when each of the 28 member states have their own
methods and views. For refugees to be granted asylum
status in the EU, the authorities must be satisfied that they
are fleeing persecution and would face harm or even
death if they were to be sent back to their country of origin.
With the conspicuous tensions present in Arab countries,
this criterion has a high likelihood of being satisfied.
By supplementing the already existing and increasing
Muslim population in Europe, the blind acceptance of
refugees might create further tensions inside European
countries. France serves as a good example with its
Muslim population of about five million: the largest
Muslim minority in Western Europe. While some are trying
to blend with the general French population, others are
showingsignsofnon-integrationinaWesternisedsociety.
These differences manifest themselves in everyday life.
Tensions ride high between the overt religion of Muslims
and France’s longstanding secularism. Already, a French
Muslim woman has brought a case against France,
arguing that the French ban on wearing the veil in public
violated her freedom of religion and expression. The
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld the ban
by France, taking “into account the state’s submission
that the face played a significant role in social interaction.”
France is not an Islamic state; these measures were
necessary to protect the secular values entrenched
in the modern French state. Freedom of thought and
religion are absolute rights but the right to manifest
them should be qualified. The ECHR was right in their
decision as for the protection of the rights of others and
security in a democratic society, as stated in Article 9 of
the Convention. A higher Muslim population will escalate
these already tense relations.
Welcoming more refugees opens doors to terrorism.
Two major Paris attacks took place in 2015 where
more than 100 people lost their lives. Charlie Hebdo, a
satirical newspaper, made art that offended the Muslim
population. Of course one may contest the drawings and
argue over liberty. Nonetheless, this was art; one should
respond to art with art, never with blood. Furthermore,
France has a long history of championing secularism:
freedom of thought and expression are key values.
By accepting 20,000 refugees over five years, the UK
accepts the same insecurity the Muslim community
engenders in France within its own territory. What is
happening in France tends to confirm and support the
idea that the presence of growing Muslim population
will have a negative impact within the countries offering
shelter themselves. Despite the attack being carried
by French nationals, they were allegedly associated to
extremist thinking imported from strict Muslim countries,
where the law is very strict and where intolerance in
relation to freedom of thought, religion and expression
is omnipresent. Letting so many migrants and refugees
inside the UK would only supplement these tensions
and the spread of terrorism. One might wonder whether
Germany, in its willingness to accept refugees, may
not be sacrificing social peace for the sake of the
economic growth it anticipates with the influx of refugees.
Welcoming refugees might turn out to be a
permanent problem instead of what appears to be
now a merely palliative measure.
There is no perfect solution to this problem. There should
be limits to the number of refugees accepted in Europe,
but that does not mean Europe should close its doors
completely. After all, at the heart of all this is human
suffering – we must be sympathetic, but also practical.
Europe will bear with the situation until stopping the war
becomes its priority. Major intervention by the leading
powers is needed to stop the waging war in Syria, so that
Syria can become a home to those who have fled again.
This is easier in theory than in practice. The status quo is
contentious.
Europe is at crossroads. It does not know what exactly
is the solution and how to apply it. This is because the
situation is so complex. The UK, France, and Germany
seemtobemoreaffectedandareatriskofsocialinstability
within their territory. However, at the same time, refugees
are not to blame for the situation in their country. If we
look at the issue in a human point of view, those people
are suffering and need help. Europe has been willing to
help those people. But it should bear in mind the risks of
its altruism.
By Simran Chittoo

24. Brexit: Unravelling the
Hypocrisies of the Eurosceptic
Movement
Why Brexit begs a second thought
22
Sovereignty and Influence: The
Hypocrisies of the Brexit Campaign.
Anyone who has spent time at a university
these days will note that many students find
it difficult to agree with the Conservatives,
let alone quote them. Nevertheless, David
Cameron was absolutely right in November
when, during a speech at the Royal
Institute of International Affairs, he stated
the forthcoming referendum on the United
Kingdom’s membership in the European
Union is “the most important [vote] that
British people will take at the ballot box in
their lifetime.”
The unfortunate reality, however, is that
much of the electorate has a very limited
awareness of the significance and influence
of the European Union. In shaping the views
of the British public about the EU, tabloid
newspapers have had, arguably, a greater
role than the education system.
Therefore, the current prevalence of
Eurosceptic discourse and lack of
awareness regarding the implications of
Brexit is a matter of great concern to our
future both as individuals and as a nation.
That is why it is necessary to explore whether
there is accuracy behind the two main
arguments submitted by Eurosceptics for
leaving Europe: Repairing sovereignty and
enhancing global influence.
The ironic truth is that Brexit, not
membershipoftheEU,istherealthreat
to UK sovereignty and influence.
UK Sovereignty
A mere glance at the name of the largest
cross-party campaign promoting Brexit,
“Vote Leave Take Control,” highlights that
the transfer of powers from Westminster to
Brussels is the greatest cause of agitation
for Eurosceptics. Indeed, one of the slogans
posted on the leave.eu website for Nigel
Farage’s campaign group is “Give Britain
back control of its own laws.”
Although Costa v ENEL established that
EU provisions are supreme over those of
its member states, and despite the fact
that a great deal of legislation comes from
Brussels, the reality is that that the EU’s
competence is actually curtailed. In fact, the
EU is largely incapable of affecting the policy
areas that people care most about such as
taxation, health, education, social welfare,
and defence.
Westminster retains competence over these
fundamental issues, thus Eurosceptic claims
that we have lost control over our own
country are untrue and misleading.
Moreover, contrary to what most would
reasonably assume, even if we did leave
the EU, Westminster would likely not retain
absolute control over all domestic laws.
Most advocates of Brexit concede that it is
essential to retain strong relations with the
EU in order to benefit from the fruits of the
internal market.
However, it would be utterly mistaken
to presume that the EU will allow Britain
to benefit from its single market without
the requirement of undertaking certain
obligations it imposes on all the other
members of the single market. In order
to participate in the single market, states
are required to comply with various
requirements including product and safety
standards.
This point is illustrated in the Swiss and
Norwegian experiences.
Whilst neither are members of the EU, in
order for them to participate in the single
market they are required to comply with a
considerable amount of EU provisions.
Significantly, the provisions limit those
countries’ ability to regulate migration
and the free movement of people. Thus,
leaving the EU would not guarantee lower
migration levels, as many Eurosceptics
claim. It is interesting to note that Switzerland
and Norway have far higher levels of EU
immigration than the UK as a proportion
of their population, according to the Open
Europe think tank.

25. 23
Moreover, the UK is likely to be offered a
less favorable deal for future relations than
the Swiss and Norwegians. Of course, this
makes complete sense. Imagine if a member
of University of Bristol Law Club (UBLC)
decided to leave. In doing so, they could
undermine the organization’s objectives and
committee members. It would be ludicrous
to think that UBLC would continue to allow
that person to benefit from its events and
activities at no cost.
Furthermore, Eurosceptics not only
exaggerate the extent of power and
sovereignty Britain would retain, but they
concealacatastrophicrisktothesovereignty
of Westminster in the United Kingdom.
Polls show that Scottish people are strongly
opposed to leaving the EU, with only 35%
being in favor of Brexit, according to a 2015
Daily Mail poll. It is, thus, a very real prospect
that if Scotland were dragged out of the EU
in a mainly English vote, it could spark and
fuel a successful referendum on Scottish
independence.
It must be remembered that Scottish
nationalists only narrowly lost in the 2014
independence vote. Brexit would give
independence campaigners the crucial
ammunition to win their long fought war
against Westminster.
Enhanced Global Influence
Eurosceptics’ claim on leave.eu that “we
have repeatedly given away control in the
hope of influence, but that hoped influence
was a mirage.” The real illusion, however, is
the image of Britain, battered and bruised
from its divorce with the union, standing
taller and stronger in the global scene on its
own, rather than alongside other member
states.
The EU is a serious global player. It
commands a position of influence that is
able to compete with that of China and
the USA. It is able to negotiate better and
more favorable trade deals for its members,
than what any of them could negotiate
by themselves. It is able to effectively take
action against climate change and in many
other areas sets precedence for other states
to follow. Moreover, it is among the greatest
contributors towards global development
and humanitarian aid in the world, giving €58
billion in Official Development Assistance
in 2014, according to the European
Commission.
In addition, the EU accounts for 26.7% of the
world economy, second only to the USA,
according to the Eurostat Report 2013, while
the UK alone accounts for only 3.8%.
These statistics clearly demonstrate that the
EU can speak louder together than the UK
can ever shout at the global table alone.
Given also that the UK accounts for a
significant proportion of the EU – with 73
seats in the European Parliament – and
exerts a great deal of influence on its agenda
and activities, the EU is most certainly the
best avenue to channel the UK’s interests.
Vladimir Putin captured how the world could
perceive the UK outside the context of the
EU when he famously said in 2013 that,
“Britain is just a small island… no one pays
any attention to them.”
Clearly arguments for bolstering sovereignty
are highly exaggerated, whereas arguments
for enhanced global influence are simply
misleading.
Eurosceptic groups are capitalising on
the lack of public awareness about the
EU, because such groups have vested
ideological interests in a British exit.
Increased public awareness and education
on the role of the EU is essential if the
electorate is to make an informed vote in the
upcoming referendum.
By Pouyan Maleki-Dizaji

26. Human Trafficking During the
Syrian Refugee Crisis
Human Trafficking during the Syrian Refugee
Crisis: Silent Human Rights violations that
must be addressed
24
We are no strangers to the current Syrian
refugee crisis. Bodies of children washed
up from the sea and photos of overflowing
inflatable dinghies scroll across our news
headlines every day. With over 12 million
people affected, this is one of the most
troubling and impactful humanitarian
crises in recent history. There seems to be
a common consensus in the international
community that something must be done to
help. However, what must also be addressed
is the risk of serious exploitation that these
millions of displaced people face. This article
aims to bring to light the potential for human
trafficking and exploitation in the Syrian
refugee crisis. It will address specific claims
of human trafficking and discuss obligations
of States set forth in legislation to investigate
and prevent related human rights violations.
What is human trafficking?
Human trafficking is the process of
transporting people for the purposes of
exploitation – including prostitution, forced
labour, slavery or servitude. In times of
desperation, people are forced or coerced
intoactionsbycriminalswhotakeadvantage
of their vulnerability. World Vision observes
the specific susceptibility of children during
this crisis, arguing that they are particularly
vulnerable to exploitation like servitude
or forced labour. Countless families have
suffered loss and death in the Syrian Civil
War, and as a result, many children are left
with less care and supervision and may
even be compelled to support their families.
Adults in these situations are more likely to
be forced into prostitution or drug-related
activity. In situations where thousands of
refugees travel by any means possible,
criminals can easily take advantage of their
desperation. We must be preemptive in
exposing and addressing any human rights
violations or exploitation through trafficking
during this refugee crisis.
What evidence do we have?
Although exploitation has not yet been
proven or even addressed during the Syrian
refugee crisis, this does not indicate that
it is not actually happening. We must first
look for more tangible evidence of human
trafficking in order to investigate its specific
purposes. Primarily, we can consider the
smuggling of refugees as likely cases of
human trafficking, and this is something that
has been consistently reported throughout
the Syrian refugee crisis. Last June The
Guardian reported an intervention of
British, Italian, and Irish ships in a rescue
of over 800 refugees being smuggled off
the Libyan coast. Around the same time,
The Independent published a story of a
23-year-old man named Zouhar who runs
a smuggling operation out of Zuwara, from
which he earns an average of $200,000
per month charging exorbitant prices to
transportdesperaterefugees.InAugust,state
prosecutor of Eisenstadt, Johann Fuchs,
spoke out about refugee trafficking and the
blatant disregard for human life perpetuating
these tragedies when 71 bodies were found
in a truck after presumably being smuggled
unsafely into Austria.
Now, it’s important to note that smuggling
and trafficking are two different concepts
with two different legal remedies. Criminal
smuggling simply entails illegally bringing
a person into a country for some (usually
financial) benefit. Trafficking includes the
added factor of threat, coercion, abuse of
power, force, deception, or some sort of
exploitation. Are the Syrian refugees who
are smuggled into Europe being threatened,
coerced, abused, taken advantage of,

27. 25
deceived, or exploited? Considering their
vulnerability and desperation, any of these
factors is highly likely.
If we see clear signs trafficking may be
taking place, and we know trafficking
exists largely for the purpose of
exploitation, it follows that we must
investigate smuggling operations.
What should be done?
According to the European Convention on
HumanRights(ECHR),signatoriesarebound
to protect victims of human trafficking and
investigateviolations. Art.1oftheConvention
clearlydictatesthatwe“protecthumanrights
of the victims of trafficking” and “ensure
effective investigation and prosecution.”
The subsequent order of “international
cooperation” in these measures leaves
us questions as to its application. In 2003
and 2004, United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime created the Protocol against the
Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and
Air and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress
and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially
Women and Children, whereby definitions of
smuggling and trafficking were agreed upon
and trafficking was criminalised according to
the United Nations. Presumably this paves a
clear path for addressing the refugee crisis,
but what collective European action have
we seen thus far?
After nearly 1,000 refugee deaths in April of
2015, the European Commission created an
agenda outlining new guidelines for better
management of migration and asylum,
which includes an emergency system.
What this agenda does not consider,
however, includes human rights trafficking
or exploitation that desperate asylum
seekers face. The Commission simply
attempts to create a more feasible system
for accepting asylum seekers into Europe.
Although it does take steps to urgently place
refugees already waiting in Italy, Greece
and Hungary, the agenda does nothing to
address the continued flooding of refugees
out of Syria and neighboring countries.
Refugees fleeing their homes require faster
and safer legal options for entering Europe
during emergency situations such as the
Syrian Civil War. Relevant authorities must
act to ensure a smoother and safer asylum
process so refugees are not compelled to
rely on illegal or unsafe means that expose
them to risk of exploitation. Then, we must
not only investigate human trafficking and
exploitation claims but we must also instate
clear policies that prevent the violations of
victims’ rights during future times of crisis.
Those affected by the Syrian Refugee
Crisis risk serious exploitation due to
their vulnerability and desperation, yet
human trafficking and subsequent human
rights violations have not yet been truly
investigated. This begs the question: what
are we waiting for? These refugees are in
needofprotection,andtheECHRsignatories
are legally bound to act.
By Sarah Plew

28. Get Britain Out
Brexit: The Case for Leaving
26
When Britain first joined the European
Union, or what was then called the European
Economic Community (EEC) in 1975, the
countrywasinadirestateofaffairs.Perceived
as the ‘sick man of Europe’, the British public
voted to join a trading organisation, with
Britain’s politicians looking towards the faster
growing economies of France and Germany.
Today Britain’s position in Europe has
reversed. Having recently overtaken the
French economy to become the 5th biggest
economy in the world, and due to overtake
Germany by 2030, we must ask ourselves
- is this in spite of, or because of our EU
membership?
Naturally, Get Britain Out believes Britain’s
current success and future prosperity relies
on a global view of the world, beyond the
constraints of the EU. Having distanced
ourselves from the most damaging excesses
coming from Brussels, keeping the EU at
arm’s length has given us this advantage -
whether from the Euro currency or the opt-
out from the borderless Schengen Zone.
The potential problems of Britain’s entry into
the EU were revealed as early as 1963, when
French President Charles de Gaulle actually
vetoed Britain’s admission into the EEC.
What was the reason? It was thought our
Anglo-American world view was simply not
in tune with continental Europe.
Whether this is our liberal economics,
internationalism or civic nationalism, Britain
has always been the reluctant outlier. This is
because ‘Europeanism’ or ‘ever closer union’
implies what the end game is: a federal EU
superstate.
Even the current promise of associate
membership is misleading as this fits into the
‘2-speed Europe’ model. Although we may
be on a slower path towards integration, we
would still arrive at the same finishing line.
Looking at England specifically, the
academic group Historians for Britain have
said: “The English state is almost without
parallel in the history of European political
development in being able to trace its
institutional origins back over a thousand
years to the early Middle Ages”.
Essentially, the foundations of Britain as a
whole go far back and this is widely reflected
in its tolerance and stability. On the other
hand, much of continental Europe came late
to the transformation of the modern political
state, not to mention succumbing to the
temptations of fascism and communism.
In summary, Britain’s slow organic growth
is divergent from the strict uniformity and
enforcement practised in Europe ever since
Napoleon. This is no better symbolised than
in the EU’s top-down approach against the
British traditions of Common Law. This is
signified in the EU document ‘Corpus Juris’.
It proposes a set of rules “designated to
ensure,alargelyunifiedEuropeanlegalarea”
and a “simpler and more efficient system of
repression”. As such, EU justice goes down
the road of high-ranking civil servants and
professional judges - not jurors or lay
magistrates.
The European Union Referendum Act
2015 has set in law the provisions for the
upcoming vote. Legal considerations for the
economic consequences will come under
severe scrutiny. Already, pro-EU groups have
started ‘Project Fear’ with the most blatant
scaremongering if Britain votes to leave the
EU.
Britain is the Eurozone’s biggest customer.
As any business knows, you do not strain
relations with your most important customer.
DespitethefacttheWorldTradeOrganisation
(WTO) already legislates against punitive
tariffs, the EU would be cutting its nose
off to spite its face if it imposes financial
restrictions on Britain’s trade with Member
States after Brexit. Germany will still want to

29. 27
sell us German cars. France will still want to
sell us champagne and French cheeses.
More clarification will come from our
captains of industry as the date draws closer.
Top investment executives from HSBC and
Barclays have confirmed the City still will
thrive outside of the EU. In addition, the
Prime Minister’s hopeful plea to have blue
chip companies announce the ‘dangers’ of
Brexit is not proving fruitful, as many will not
release pro-EU statements by default any
longer.
It is therefore the job of Eurosceptics to take
the fear out of Brexit. Let’s remember, the
negative implications now claimed by the
IN side are the exact same arguments used
by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
when they claimed not joining the Eurozone
would spell disaster for Britain. The opposite
has proved to be the case. Staying out of the
Euro was one of the wisest political decisions
ever made.
By leaving the EU, the legal and regulatory
framework of Britain will not undergo an
apocalyptic shift. Businesses which trade
abroadwillstillhavetoadheretointernational
trading standards with whichever country
they export to. Britain will also regain its own
seat on the WTO.
Only 5% of British businesses trade with the
EU. After Brexit, they will no longer be forced
to adhere to red tape purely intended to
assist big businesses.
Brexit will also mean Britain will be exempt
from 3 areas of pan-European legislation
which Westminster does not agree with -
treaties and regulations, directives, and the
Court of Justice.
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty states: ‘The
Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in
question from the date of entry into force
of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that,
2 years after the notification referred to in
paragraph 2, unless the European Council,
in agreement with the Member State
concerned, unanimously decides to extend
thisperiod.’So,aMemberStatewhichwishes
to leave will undergo a 2-year negotiation
period with Brussels. After this, laws Britain
wants to retain - such as data protection,
environmental law and employment law
- can simply stay in place. Those we don’t
want, we can change in Westminster.
In today’s globalised world, the EU’s bloc
mentality is simply outdated. In economic
terms, bigger is certainly not better. It’s
the integrationist stance of the EU which
has caused such excessive interference.
Looking across to North America, it is clear
the public voted for a similar arrangement
to NAFTA, which includes the United States,
Canada and Mexico. The difference is clear.
The European version has its own flag,
anthem and parliament.
As the Conservative government seeks to
‘renegotiate’, it is clear they will never shift the
federalist thinking inherent among Brussels’
bureaucrats. Every EU treaty in existence
has pointed in one direction - European
federalism. The European Commission’s
‘5 Presidents’ Report’ demonstrates this
as it sets out a plan to ‘deepen the EU and
complete the Capital Markets Union by
2025.
The rising tide of Euroscepticism in Britain
and the rest of the EU is easy to understand.
It makes no sense to claim a more peaceful
and diverse Europe will come from merging
into a single federal state. The rise of extreme
populist and xenophobic parties is because
of the EU, not in spite of it.
When considering the defeatist statements
from those wedded to the aspiring and
expanding federal EU superstate - remember
what the Chairman of the Britain Stronger
in Europe campaign admitted “Nothing is
going to happen if we come out ... There will
be absolutely no change”.
Britain does not belong in a stagnant political
union. Our success will come from a global
outlook and openness, not a fading customs
union which cannot step away from ‘ever
closer union’. This is clearly why we must Get
Britain Out of the EU.
By Jayne Adye
CampaignDirectorforcross-partygrassroots
Eurosceptic campaign, Get Britain Out