LA 92 - Fighting a Cycle of Injustice

LA 92 is a National Geographic documentary covering the devastating Los Angeles riots that left 63 dead and over 2,000 injured, with more than $1 billion of damage done to properties across LA county between April 29^th and May 4^th 1992. The riots began as a response to the acquittal of 4 LAPD officers accused of excessive force in the arrest and beating of Rodney King, and the leniency in judgement afforded to a Korean shop owner who shot and killed a 16-year-old girl, Latasha Harlins, whom she wrongly suspected of attempting to rob her. The systematic and institutionalised racism this revealed in the heart of the justice system sparked angry protests, which swiftly degenerated into violent racially-motivated attacks against residents of Koreatown and white motorists on the intersection of Florence and Normandie, and widespread looting across LA. The chaos continued for 6 days, with the LAPD seemingly abandoning Koreatown in order to safeguard predominantly white and wealthy neighbourhoods in Beverly Hills and West Hollywood, before the California National Guard was called in to restore order.

Just as the documentary draws parallels between the 1992 riots and the 1965 Watts Rebellion, which saw 34 killed and $40 million in damage, it is difficult not to compare the spark of the 1992 unrest to the shooting of Michael Brown and strangulation of Eric Garner, both at the hands of US law enforcement, that catalysed the Black Lives Matter movement into a global campaign to tackle systemic racism towards black people in 2014. The antagonistic relationship between law enforcement and ethnic minorities in the US shows little sign of abating. More recently, the imprisoning and separation of families at the US border marks just the latest human rights violation committed under the guise of justice in the United States. As a news report cited in the documentary states: racism in the US is as American as apple pie.

But by the 4^th May 1992 the LA riots were not a principled reaction to an unjust system, but an insight into the depravity of the worst of our human condition. As victims are dragged from their cars by mobs of angry young men and beaten – in some cases to death – or  forced to watch as their stores and homes are burned to the ground, the viewer is forced to confront not just the reality of a system built on racism and division, but the depths of humanity's capacity for violence when pushed to breaking point. At one point, a man stood on the Hollywood Hills, overlooking the burning city below, points out that this wasn’t just about racial prejudice or injustice, but that people of all races were rioting because of economic frustrations and a sense that they had been forgotten by the political system.

In an age when our politics is becoming more divisive across the world and where people of all social classes, religions, and ethnicities are again feeling as though they are not being listened to, we should take note of the cocktail of conditions that led to this explosion in LA in 1992. Where does inequality, injustice, and pent-up frustration eventually lead? Can this be channelled into peaceful, productive protest rather than the senseless violence showcased in LA 92? Is history destined to repeat itself again and again?

To prevent the repetition of a destructive cycle that keeps people separated by race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexuality, we should pay close attention to the message of hope that also runs through LA 92.

It wasn't the police or the national guard that ended the violence and restored order to LA. It wasn't the President. It was the people. Ordinary citizens with their brooms and their bin bags and their messages of peace and reconciliation, who came out to clean up the mess in a show of solidarity. People of all races, ages, religions. Defiant in the face of the violence, they worked together to restore their communities, to reject the divisive identity politics that had fuelled the madness of a week of chaos. They were not people in positions of power, and they had little to gain from standing up against a mob that had seemingly lost its mind. They put themselves at risk to try to mend a broken community. And they prevailed.

When violence occurs and horror seems to overwhelm the situation, look for the leaders. Look for those protesting against the tide, like the older man yelling at the looters that what they're doing isn't right, or the congresswoman regaining control of an angry crowd outside the post office during the riots by asking them politely to “work with her”. Or Rodney King himself, overcoming his own fear and shame at what had happened to plead for the violence to stop. Look for those who are trying to do good, even when everything around them is bad. They are always there. And they will bring us all back from the brink, usually with no support, no sense of self preservation, and no recognition.

LA 92 left me feeling shocked, angry, and sick to my stomach. But it also gave a glimpse of hope for how people are able to overcome our differences and reject prejudice, injustice, and violence in favour of the search for a better world together. We are a long way from a just, egalitarian, and peaceful utopia. But we will keep trying to find our way there.

Rodney King, in his emotional and powerful plea for calm towards the end of the riots, said it best:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

We're all stuck here for a while, let's try to work it out.”

LA 92 is available to watch on Netflix.

Fear and Falsehood - The Fallacy of Global War

The brutal massacre of 50 people as they attended Friday afternoon prayers in Christchurch by a white nationalist terrorist last week has dominated headlines across the world. Understandably, the worst terror incident in New Zealand’s history, which the attacker livestreamed on Facebook, has been impossible to ignore. For a peaceful nation, this was a tragedy of almost unprecedented scale.

As world leaders praise Jacinda Ardern’s leadership in response to the terror attack, and investigators pour over the killer’s “rambling, strangely written” and vehemently anti-Muslim manifesto, debate continues to rage over what this latest extreme act of violence means for the increasingly polarised global political and religious landscape. Just two days after the Christchurch shooting, there was another mass shooting, this time claiming the lives of three people and seriously injuring three more in Utrecht, Netherlands. Although there is currently little hard evidence that this attack was motivated by terror, the police announcement that this is an ongoing line of enquiry was quickly co-opted by various media outlets and prominent figures to highlight the “threat” of Muslim immigration to Europe (a threat that the Christchurch attacker also claimed as a motive).

It seems the violent terrorist attack by an “angelic boy” has led to a crisis of conscience in some western media outlets. In response to the extensive media coverage around Christchurch, Breitbart, the far-right American news website, bemoaned the supposed media silence of a massacre of Christians in Nigeria in the weeks running up to Christchurch. Citing sources from other right-wing outlets such as Christian Militant, the article highlights what it sees as hypocrisy in the mainstream media in its uneven coverage of the attacks in New Zealand and Nigeria: “The New York Times did not place this story on the front page; in fact, they did not cover it at all. Apparently, when assessing “all the news that’s fit to print,” the massacre of African Christians did not measure up”.

It is true that the deaths of up to 120 Christians in Nigeria in February and March 2019 did not get the same headline coverage as the Christchurch massacre. I have not found one western media outlet that has reported on any one of the attacks against Christian farmers in northern or central Nigeria this year, by predominantly Muslim Fulani herdsmen. However, this is the extent of the accuracy in the Breitbart article.

The article goes on to incorrectly describe the attackers as “Fulani Jihadists”, when in fact the main motive for the prolonged violence between these groups is not a religious one. Nor is it a one-off terrorist act. Violence between Fulani Muslim herdsman and Christian farmer groups of various ethnicities in these areas of Nigeria is a result of a prolonged and increasingly desperate struggle for land ownership. International NGOs, such as International Crisis Group, have been reporting on the tit-for-tat violence since fighting escalated last year. In the same way that no western media outlets reported the attacks on Christian farmers by the Fulani in the last few months, the ICG report in summer of last year was largely ignored in the Western mainstream.

Unfortunately, such violence between groups that are in direct competition over increasingly sparse resources is becoming routine in Nigeria, and, as I argued in my Future of Climate Conflict post, will likely be exacerbated globally as climate change stretches the limits of our natural resources. As ICG noted in their analysis of the herdsman/pastoralist conflict in Nigeria, ethnic and religious differences between the disparate groups are easily exploited in a context of increasing uncertainty and economic fear, making violence more likely.

The Christian victims of the Fulani attacks were not killed because of their religion, and it is wrong to claim otherwise. An excellent Snopes fact-checking article adds that “while Breitbart’s article provided details of several reported attacks by Fulani herders on farmers in Kaduna State in February and March 2019, it did not mention the attack on the mainly Muslim Fula ethnic group, which was the single largest reported atrocity during the time period in question”. These attacks are part of a larger conflict, one that the western media has made no effort to report on since its very beginning. This in itself is a demonstration of the failings of the media to report on African conflict, but it is not an example of an agenda that somehow “favours” Muslim victimhood and silences violence against Christians, as Breitbart implies. In fact, the extensive coverage of the “bring back our girls” campaign that followed the abduction of 200 school girls in Nigeria by the terror group Boko Haram demonstrates that Jihadist violence features heavily in the global discourse on terrorism.

Religion- and ethnicity-based identity politics are the weapons used to encourage intergroup hostility and violence. What happened at Christchurch was a tragedy and a disgrace. Any deaths as a result of intergroup violence in Nigeria or Utrecht are equally horrifying. This is not a time for comparison, or finger pointing. The attack in New Zealand shook the world because of the visceral nature of an attack on such a scale in an otherwise peaceful country, that was livestreamed online for viewers around the world to watch. The attacks on Christian farmers in Nigeria have left thousands to struggle with the loss of a father, mother, partner, or child. Families across Utrecht now have to come to terms with lives that have been permanently damaged.

No good has come of any of this violence. All that has been left behind is sorrow, anguish, and in some cases likely a desire for revenge. People have been killed simply for being who they are. The motivation behind the act in no way justifies the consequences in any of these instances, but the context and nuance of each situation should not be ignored. If you are looking for evidence to suggest that Christianity and Islam are incompatible, then you will find it. But that does not mean it is actually there. This is not a point scoring exercise. This is not some apocalyptic endgame between Christians and Muslims. This is not a war. This is madness.

We are people. We live and work together. We stand side by side and help each other out and laugh together and muddle through and try to make something in the years we have here. For some of us, those years ran out too soon. 

Nobody is responsible for the deaths in Christchurch other than the terrorist who held the gun. But he was inspired by the exact rhetoric and sabre rattling that Breitbart and others have co-opted for their own ends. The attacker explicitly stated that his reasoning for killing 50 innocent people was because of the existential threat that Islam supposedly poses to Christian/Western values. This is the exact same rhetoric used by Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram and other Jihadi groups the world over. Deflecting from a terror attack committed in the name of white nationalism and Christianity by highlighting attacks on Christians reinforces the exact thinking that led to this brutality in the first place. Not only is this thinking wrong, it is incredibly dangerous. He killed them because they kill us.

He killed them because they kill us.

Where does this kind of thinking end?

Child Soldier to War Criminal - The Cycle of Violence in Uganda

Dominic Ongwen, Brigade Commander in the Lord’s Resistance Army under the leadership of Joseph Kony, stands on trial at the International Criminal Court on 70 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. His charge list makes for grim reading: murder, enslavement, inhumane acts of inflicting serious bodily injury and suffering, cruel treatment of civilians, intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population, torture, rape, and pillaging.

But Ongwen’s trial is not unique in the nature of the brutality it will examine; these stories are unfortunately all too familiar in the region of central Africa that the LRA has terrorised for over three decades. Rather, it is unique in that it marks a first for the International Criminal Court. This is the first time that an inductee is being charged with the same crimes that have been done to him. Thomas Obhof, a defence lawyer on the case, has emphasised this point in discussing the charges against Ongwen: ““He was tortured … forced to watch people being killed, was used for fighting as a child soldier. Even the prosecution have said that what he went through is a serious mitigating factor.”

Ongwen was abducted by LRA soldiers when he was around ten years old (he claims in his own testimony that he was 14, but this is disputed by other LRA captives who think he was younger). Once captured, he was tortured and forced to watch videos of people being killed. As he became indoctrinated, he was taken under the wing of Kony’s deputy commander, Vincent Otti, who acted as a father figure to the young boy (and would later be indicted alongside Ongwen by the ICC, though he would be executed by Kony before facing justice). He was told he was fighting for the future of his people, the Acholi of northern Uganda, and that his missions had come from God. He was told he would grow up to be a leader of a feared and elite military unit. And he did, impressing Kony and Otti with his military tactics, and striking fear into the heart of any civilians who knew his name.

Now in the dock, this former child soldier stands before the world as a perpetrator of the very acts he witnessed and suffered through as a boy. Almost 2,000 people will be represented by the prosecution in his case, which is currently ongoing. As far as many are concerned, life imprisonment will not be justice enough for Dominic Ongwen. Joseph Akweyu Manoba, appointed by the ICC to represent the victims, told the Guardian “They tell me that if the ICC doesn’t punish him and he returns to Uganda then they will kill him themselves”.

And who can blame them? Ongwen’s Sinia Brigade ravaged northern Uganda between May 2004 and October 2005, attacking IDP camps, and killing, raping, and plundering their way across the land they were supposedly liberating.

Ongwen’s childhood abduction by Kony’s men does not excuse his own abhorrent acts. He remains responsible for his own crimes, and if he is found guilty he should be held accountable for every single life he ended or ruined. But his story should remain a warning for those seeking revenge for horrors inflicted upon themselves.

Perpetrators are rarely simply perpetrators. Many were victims first. This does not absolve them of their moral duties, and nor should it change our opinion of them or their actions. But the contexts in which a monster is made should be examined, because only then can we work towards ending the cycle of violence that only breeds more violence.

Dominic Ongwen, child soldier turned war criminal, now faces some form of justice at the ICC. His captor, torturer, commanding officer, and spiritual leader, Joseph Kony, remains at large. The LRA has abducted 3,400 more children since 2008. Child Soldiers International reports that active recruitment of child soldiers occurs in at least 46 countries globally, and that children have served in at least 18 conflicts since 2016. All will live with the consequences of violence for the rest of their lives.

As the ICC tries to find a semblance of justice in the case of Dominic Ongwen, it falls to all of us to work towards ensuring that we do not have to do this again. As Ongwen’s story demonstrates, it is far easier to harm than to heal. Violence can undo in seconds what peace takes years to achieve. We must strive for peace, however hard that may be.

You can find out more about child soldiers here.

Humanitarian Commandos - The Problem with Politicising Aid

The international humanitarian sector faces a host of challenges in improving its capacity to respond to complex emergencies across the globe. In the context of increasing violence being perpetrated against aid workers globally (174 aid workers were killed in 2017 alone, a 30% increase from the year before), international NGOs and humanitarian organisations are facing difficult decisions regarding how best to remain effective in supporting civilians affected by conflict, and also safeguarding their own personnel.

When a situation becomes too unsafe for humanitarian work to continue, the consequences can be disastrous. For example, when MSF was forced to suspend operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 450,000 people were affected. Therefore, humanitarian organisations and development actors are searching for new ways of working that can allow for continued aid support in dangerous areas, and that also provide a modicum of protection for the aid workers themselves.

According to a recent report from USAID’s Global Development Hub, the answer may be to train aid workers as commandos. The proposal of the development of so-called Rapid Expeditionary Development (RED) teams within USAID would allow humanitarian work to continue in areas where other civilian American personnel are unable to reach, according to the report’s authors. The suggestion is that “RED Team members would be specifically recruited and trained ... to secure communities vulnerable to violent extremist radicalization and exploitation” and that these individuals would then be able to act independently of partner organisations in delivering support in austere environments.

This sort of “elite humanitarian” capability may well increase the capacity of USAID to respond in hard-to-reach areas and allow for a more hands-on approach to complex emergencies as they unravel, but it also risks further blurring the line between humanitarian action and military activities.

Traditional humanitarian approaches to security are characterised by ‘acceptance’, or the idea that aid and development workers will be kept safe by the fact that they are not perceived as a threat (as enshrined as a fundamental principle of humanitarian action by the Red Cross movement). In contrast, the use of military-style tactics and techniques help to contribute to a “culture of war” that can lead to the perception of foreign actors as combatants rather than benign actors.

The growing number of attacks on humanitarian actors since 2003 has been attributed to the increasing link between INGO activity and the agendas of western governments. USAID, as an American organisation, can be expected to work in support of wider US strategic goals, but humanitarian actors more generally must be seen to remain neutral in the conflict situations in which they respond. A 2017 article published in International Peacekeeping found that “there is a growing consensus that the politicization of aid and its embeddedness within military operations may be contributing to greater humanitarian insecurity…”. This extends to the humanitarian sector in its broadest sense. If one organisation is seen to be acting in a way not befitting of the humanitarian agenda then the entire sector is held responsible - and suffers the consequences.

The USAID proposal argues that RED Team members could be used to help win the “hearts and minds” of local communities, but this very terminology was borne from the counterinsurgency movement in the US military (as the report itself references). Humanitarian action should not be about “winning hearts and minds”. It should be about saving lives. Governmental agencies like USAID or DFID will of course work to uphold national interests, but the co-option of humanitarian activity to meet political ends puts the whole sector in the firing line.

The legitimacy of the humanitarian sphere as a neutral, impartial, and independent force for good is the best defence an aid worker can have.

“Humanitarian commando” is an oxymoron. Aid worker deaths and kidnappings will continue to rise if the lines between humanitarian and combatant remain blurred.

Valentine's Poems and a Poundland Lenin

It’s been another day of useless and stupid political discourse in the UK. Today, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell comes under fire for calling Winston Churchill a “villain” for his decision to send in soldiers to break up striking miners in Tonypandy, South Wales, as home secretary in 1910 – 1911. In response, Sir Nicholas Soames, Tory MP and grandson of Churchill, referred to McDonnell as a “third rate, Poundland Lenin” who was only making the statement in order to gain publicity. If that were the case, it certainly worked. Theresa May and Boris Johnson rushed to the defence of Churchill, with Johnson declaring on Twitter “"Winston Churchill saved this country and the whole of Europe from a barbaric fascist and racist tyranny and our debt to him is incalculable… JM should be utterly ashamed of his remarks and withdraw them forthwith.". The argument has become so heated that Tory MP Robert Halfon even requested an “emergency debate” on Churchill in Parliament.

McDonnell’s quote came in response to a question posed in a Q&A with Politico: “Winston Churchill, hero or villain?”. Given the simplicity of the question, McDonnell was almost forced to answer unequivocally; in Tonypandy, Churchill was the villain.  He did later clarify that Churchill was a “hero” in the war.

Now I would like to suggest, and bear with me here, that both responses might be correct. Is it not possible that the “greatest Briton who ever lived” is also the man who enthusiastically supported British concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer War? Is it not possible that the man who led Britain at a time when the Empire was on the brink of collapse did his utmost to defend the UK, even at the expense of the colonies?

There is no such thing as a hero or villain. There are only public figures who make decisions that benefit some, often at the expense of others. Good people do bad things, bad people occasionally do good things, and those of us who fall squarely in the “average” category will keep doing both. The world is not black and white. And we should not treat it as such.

Reducing Winston Churchill to a “hero” or a “villain” deprives us of the ability to rationally evaluate the decisions that he made as a leader. When we talk about someone as influential as Churchill we should be able to do so objectively, or we risk historical revisionism. Take Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, a peace icon and Burmese national hero who later stooped to the depths of inhumanity in her tacit support for ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Rakhine. Her past triumphs should not justify her current crimes. Nor should Churchill’s status as a British hero make him immune to criticism.

This debate serves as a distraction to the looming debacle of Brexit currently hanging over the UK. But in case you were worried that the Churchill scandal was preventing Parliament from making serious progress in Brexit negotiations don’t worry, Tory MP Andrea Leadsom and SNP MP Pete Wishart found time to spar on the issue through some Valentine’s poems…

What has happened to debate? In the Twitter age, it appears to be easier to launch a personal attack against someone with an opposing view than to consider their argument and respond with a reasonable critique. When the Brexit negotiations in the UK parliament look more like point-scoring exercises than meaningful discussions on how best to secure a deal, we have to start to question where it all went wrong. If we lose the ability as a society to debate the legacies of our most important public figures, or the content of the policies that will shape our country for decades to come, then we lose the ability to meaningfully come together to find solutions to our biggest issues.

You may or may not agree with John McDonnell. You might think I’m wrong to criticise those who responded angrily to his comments. You might also be pro-deal, be happy to leave the EU without a deal, want a second referendum or have no idea what it is that you want from the Brexit madness anymore. That’s good. That’s normal. Let’s take a breather and ask why we’re so upset. Let’s talk about it.

The Sudanese Spring? - Demonstrations and Dissent in Khartoum

2019 is likely to be a difficult year for Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir. As protests against his economic reforms continue to spread, including into loyalist areas of the country, the upheaval represents one of the greatest challenges to his 30-year rule of the country. The protests were triggered by a cut to wheat subsidies that saw the price of bread double overnight at the end of last year, but this was only the latest in a trend of economic decisions that have led to rampant inflation throughout the year.

The peaceful protests that emerged in response to this latest economic stressor were met with Bashir’s preferred tool for dealing with political unrest: excessive violence. Riot police, tear gas, and live ammunition have been employed across the country since the outbreak of protests on December 19^th last year. As a result, Human Rights Watch claims that 40 protestors have been killed (The official death toll, according to Sudanese officials, is 24, as of the 13^th January). According to official reports, a further 816 people have been arrested, university professors, students, doctors, and lawyers among them.

This new wave of protests is unique in that it encompasses people who have previously either supported the President or remained silent during periods of civil unrest. Even prominent party members have spoken out against their leader. According to some, Bashir’s position has never been weaker, and that means that the loyalty of the security forces that have quashed previous rebellions can no longer be guaranteed. As the International Crisis Group notes, “The police and other security agencies, including the National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS), have at times responded brutally but the army has shown greater restraint than before and, noting this, the opposition has urged generals to remove Bashir.” Rumblings in the military elite may signal a sign of growing discontent within the very groups Bashir requires to protect him.

Bashir’s grip has steadily loosened since the secession of South Sudan in 2011, which saw a dramatic 75% decrease in Sudan’s oil revenues. This, coupled with economic sanctions from many Western states (due largely to Sudan’s status in Washington as a “state sponsor of terrorism”), severely limited Bashir’s capacity to fund development projects in the country and maintain his security apparatus. As the wheat subsidies cuts demonstrate, it was the state’s social programmes that suffered. Critics maintain that economic mismanagement and the cost of fighting ethnic minority rebellions have left other government sectors severely underfunded for decades. For the many dedicated government staff who sincerely want to support Sudan’s civil society, Bashir clientelism is a constant obstacle to development. Increasingly, these former allies of Bashir are now speaking out and calling for desperately-needed reform.

Bashir may have felt that he did not need to consider the needs of an increasingly poor and disenfranchised population as long as he kept his security forces strong and loyal. He is no stranger to silencing critics through force. 200 protestors were killed in September 2013 after protests over a cut in fuel subsidies (authorities put the death toll at 84). The actions of the Sudanese Armed Forces and their Janjaweed militia allies in Darfur in 2003 – 2008 have led the ICC to issue a warrant for Bashir’s arrest on five counts of crimes against humanity, two counts of war crimes, and three counts of genocide. Whilst some fighting continues across Darfur, any regional groups that could have posed a direct threat to Bashir’s government have been splintered by the protracted violence inflicted upon the region. Despite the ICC warrant, Bashir has visited at least 33 countries with impunity, and continues to conduct state business on the global stage. It seems violence has served him extremely well in the past.

But violence alone cannot preserve a leader that has failed in too many other aspects. Half of Sudan’s population now live below the poverty line. With protestors calling for “freedom, peace and justice” in the same breath as they call for “the fall of the regime”, it becomes clear that this is a storm that Bashir may not weather. Sudan has great potential to be a prosperous nation, and the people show a renewed willingness to demand better of their leaders.

Due to his capacity to navigate a seemingly endless barrage of national emergencies, Bashir is often seen as a political survivor. But now it appears that the Sudanese public are no longer content with simply survival. They want to live.

You can keep up-to-date on the latest developments in Sudan via @YousraElbagir on Twitter.

The UK's Homelessness Epidemic

A couple of weekends ago I went out in London for some pre-Christmas drinks with some friends from university. It was a rainy evening, but the streets were full of people heading home from Christmas shopping or out to office parties and to catch up with friends. It was hectic. On my way to the pub I crossed from Euston train station to Warren Street underground, a walk of no more than five minutes down just one road. Dodging the mums dragging their bags of presents home and the groups of students laughing and joking as they headed further into town, I passed a total of eleven homeless people sat in doorways attempting to protect themselves from the spitting rain. I, along with everyone else, kept walking past.

Britain is in the middle of a homelessness epidemic. Homelessness charity Shelter estimates the number of those with no permanent residence at 320,000, an increase from 307,000 in 2017 and 294,000 in 2016. Of those 320,000 the charity Crisis estimates that over 24,000 will be sleeping rough, on the streets or public transport, over this Christmas period. According to the same study, the number of rough sleepers in Britain has risen by 98% since 2010, and the number in tents and buses has increased by 103%.

The dramatic rise in rough sleeping is having an impact at local level. In Brighton and Hove, which has the second largest homeless population in England, city councillors are finding themselves heavily divided on the best way to tackle the issue. After the council was asked to apologise for forcing several homeless people out of their tents early this year, the debate over how best to respond to the rising number of rough sleepers has intensified, with Conservative councillor Robert Nemeth claiming that now is the time for “tough love not warm words”. Allowing tents on the street and not doing more to tackle street drinking, he claims, is a “national embarrassment” that is harming both the affected individuals and Brighton’s tourism industry. Green councillor Alex Phillips countered that the city’s decision to spend £10 million on improving infrastructure would have been better spent on housing.

But here lies the problem. Local councils are having to make decisions based on their limited budgets, and in Brighton, which depends on tourism for a large part of its industry and income, it makes sense that better infrastructure will win out in the allocation of funding. Despite the national government’s asserted aims to eliminate rough sleeping by 2027, local councils across the country are arguing that they are not being provided with the funding required to tackle the issue effectively.  Local government is at the pointed end of a spear that has been systematically failing those at risk of falling into homelessness for years.

Individual causes of homelessness (the breakdown of relationships, drug and alcohol misuse, domestic violence – which was listed as a cause in a staggering 6,850 cases of homelessness in 2017/17) are exacerbating factors for large numbers of rough sleepers across the UK, but the rising number of individuals finding themselves without a place to stay in recent years points to underlying systematic factors increasingly making people vulnerable to losing their home. The most frequently reported cause of homelessness is failure to find new accommodation at the end of a short hold lease, followed by increasingly unaffordable rent prices. The housing crisis in the UK continues to worsen, with the average rent price in London now costing 49% of the average monthly salary, and the national average cost of a house standing at 7.8 times the average annual salary for a full-time worker. Home ownership is increasingly unattainable, and renting is increasingly unsustainable as the shortage of suitable property continues to drive up prices. Stagnating wages and the instability of renting also means that 8 million people in the UK are just one pay check away from being unable to pay for their home. The ever-increasing cost of living is reducing consumer spending as more and more money is diverted to private landlords and banks in order to pay for housing.

As living costs spiral upward, austerity measures have systematically broken down the safety nets for those at risk of slipping into poverty. The United Nations’ special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, recently accused the UK government of inflicting “great misery” on its citizens through its austerity policies. He cited a report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that found that around “14 million people, a fifth of the population, live in poverty and 1.5 million are destitute”. Poverty on this scale, in the world’s fifth-largest economy, is a political choice, claimed the report. Such statements have seemingly passed under the radar thanks to the overwhelming focus on Brexit, which itself has purportedly cost the average UK household £900, according the Bank of England.

It is unfortunate that the political debacle of Brexit has diverted attention away from Conservative claims that “austerity is over”, because an examination of the limited implementation of these policies would have revealed far more about what we could be doing better to support the millions of people at risk of falling into poverty and homelessness. The Brexit monster has derailed Theresa May’s pledges to tackle society’s injustices, but it remains true that years of austerity-focused policies after the 2008 recession have left us a nation more divided and unequal than we were a decade ago, with more than one-fifth of the population living below the poverty line as wealth inequality continues to grow.

In his report on the UK’s austerity measures, Philip Alston claims that “British compassion for those who are suffering has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous approach apparently designed to instil discipline where it is least useful...” (p3). As the use of food banks soars, the number deaths of homeless people increases by 24%, and the level of rough sleepers doubles in five years, the richest 1,000 Britons have increased their wealth by £274 billion since 2013. In 2018, the wealth of the richest 1,000 people in the UK is £724 billion which is greater than the poorest 40% of households combined (£567 billion). These figures dwarf the £10 million that Brighton and Hove councillors put towards infrastructure for the city rather than housing for the homeless population. According to a government report from 2012, homelessness in the UK costs the taxpayer around £1 billion. A compassionate approach could solve this crisis. In fact, early interventions that prevent homelessness from occurring could also save the public purse up to £370 million.

The rising number of homeless people are just the most obvious sign of a system of austerity that has been damaging the middle and working classes in this country for years. When those people are imagined as drug addicts and failures, that demonstrates a society lacking in compassion. When tents and sleeping bags on the side of the street are “a national embarrassment”, we’ve lost our humanity somewhere along the way.

We need to push our government to do better by the people it is supposed to serve. And in the meantime, we could all do a little more to show compassion for those that society has failed. We can all try our best to not just walk past.

If you want to find out what you can do to support someone struggling with homelessness this winter, you can visit the Shelter or Crisis websites.