London: Rotherham gang is a group in Britain, including four Pakistani men and two British women who groomed, raped, prostituted and abused teenage girls in Rotherham town of England and were handed combined prison sentences of 103 years on Friday.
It was found that at least 1,400 girls had been sexually exploited in Rotherham over a 16-year period.
Sikh group in Britain has urged the media and politicians to stop describing the Rotherham grooming gang, which was handed combined sentence of more than 100 years for sexual assault on women, as “Asian”.
Sikh Federation UK said the use of term “Asian” for the Rotherham gang is too vague and “besmirches” other communities, The Independent reported on Sunday.
“If the four men that have been found guilty and carried out the abuse were Pakistani Muslims, this is how they should be described and not called Asian,” he added.
In a joint statement, the Hindu Council UK, the Network of Sikh Organisations, Sikh Media Monitoring Group and the Sikh Awareness Society had said: “Communities who themselves fall victim of this emerging pattern of criminality, should not be besmirched by the vague terminology ‘Asian’, in order to help find a solution to the problem, we need to be clear on the identity of those involved.”
The petition closed with 1,859 signatures calling for the word “Asian” not to be used in grooming and sex abuse cases.(inputs from agencies)
Feb 27, 2017: The most important part of advertisements is the story line and it gives a spur on the social media when the lessons from the story line are timeless. Needless to say, every time a free-spirited ad is released, it not only sparks conversations over the internet but also leaves a viral trail of debates. Just in the same way, some of the Indian advertisements did when they strove to change the mindset of people with regard to gender difference. We often tend to slur women not realizing the essence of being a woman, it takes strength and an indomitable spirit to be a woman. This article will talk about how advertisements in India are leading by example and discarding gender difference.
Let’s recall some of the advertisements that did away with gender difference.
Nike’s recent ‘Da Da Ding’ ad starring Deepika Padukone as one among other female athletes is a powerful ad which got the people talking about giving importance to female athletes as well. It showcased females of a real athletic figure which is not animated and has got nothing to do with ‘legs and butts’.
(A still from Nike’s Da Da Ding advertisement)
The ad portrayed women as fierce and passionate about sports. Once upon a time, Nike’s product catered almost exclusively to marathon runners and then, a fitness craze emerged –and the folks in Nike’s marketing department knew where to mark their next move, an applause for Nike for initiating a spellbinding effort.
NewsGrambrings to you latest new stories in India.
Whisper, Touch the pickle ad
(A still from Whisper Touch the pickle advertisement)
Whisper, Touch the pickle ad is another exemplary of breaking taboos surrounding women’s menstrual cycle. The whisper #Touchthepickle campaign makes an attempt to purge the baseless superstitions owing to Dos and Dont’s in menses. The ad showcases a young girl who dares to touch the pickle while she is on her periods. It conveys a sensible meaning to its viewers to break away these taboos. The ad was lauded internationally and awarded ‘Glass Lion Grand Prix’ award at Cannes International Festival of Creativity.
Many advertisements over the years have sold the cosmetic product but fewer have tried to change the societal conception of beauty. Even fewer have tried to do both, Joy Cosmetic is the brand that did it in India.
(A still from Joy beauty advertisement) The ad begins with showcasing a well renowned oversized comedian, Bharti Singh asking the viewers “What did you expect, 36-24-36?”, and shuts down body shamers who presumed it to be an ideal body size. The ad conveys effortlessly that an Ideal beauty has nothing to do with body and shape.The advertisement has a sensitive message and is meaningful to its consumers.
The immigration officers held them as “undesirable aliens” from Asia who were likely to become burdens on the American taxpayer
The concomitant bureaucratic reasoning, the medical discourse, framing of legal processes, etc., were all harnessed to stop the Asian migration
After four years since the incident, the Department of Justice admitted that it had been wrong in detaining and deporting subjects of the British Empire
Twelve Sikhs and one Muslim from the Punjab province in British India landed at the Angel Island Immigration Station on July 29, 1913, in San Francisco Bay and were seeking entry into the United States. The group mostly of the farming profession had sailed on S.S. Persia from Manila, Philippines, then an insular territory of America. While some wished to get into the business, others dreamt of climbing the “agricultural ladder” in time.
The immigration officers held them as “undesirable aliens” from Asia who were likely to become burdens on the American taxpayer. The official reason, however, was “that they are of the laboring class, that there is no demand for such labor and there exists a strong prejudice against them in this locality. The arrival and arrest of the ‘Hindus’ made news in local dailies, because, traveling aboard the Pacific Mail Steamship Company-owned S.S. Persia, they had been part of a benchmark voyage. While the Persia was a veteran of transpacific journeys, this particular trip had seen it ferry the largest ever number of ‘steerage passengers’ from Asia.
The 13 Hindus were individually interrogated by the Immigration Inspector R.E. Peabody and were then formally arraigned, and taken into custody. But one of them, Naram Singh, was released for he either chose to self-deport or was allowed entry—which, is not known. The concomitant bureaucratic reasoning, the medical discourse, framing of legal processes, etc., were all harnessed to stop the Asian migration.
The same sequence of events played themselves out once again, on August 2, in 1913, said the report. When S.S. Korea landed at the docks, all ten ‘Hindus’ were arrested and detained at Angel Island. Out of the twenty-two, the situation was critical for seven among them—five from the first group, and two from the second, mentioned sada.org Website. They had been diagnosed with uncinariasis, or to be carrying hookworms—deemed a “dangerous, contagious disease” and a threat to public health in America. The only legitimate way to evade this was to admit oneself for treatment under quarantine and bear the expenses accrued which the concerned seven did.
Around the second week of August, the bail bonds, that were required to proceed to the mainland and remain free until their case was decided, began coming in. By the end of the month, all, except the seven afflicted with uncinariasis, had been released from detention on Angel Island under conditions put forth in their bail.
The show of support for the detainees had Commissioner Backus concerned. The telegram to the Commissioner General of Immigrations in Washington D.C., Anthony Caminetti goes like this “Voluminous evidence [have been] presented by attorneys[,]” he informed, “supported by affidavits of prospective employers showing that ‘Hindu’ labor is needed and desirable and that Hindus are not objectionable to the State [of California]. My views are opposed to this…” But the processing of deportation warrants for the twenty-two Hindus was already in motion.
On October 10, the Department of Labor ultimately issued warrants authorizing the deportation of the Hindus but the writ of habeas corpus at the U.S. District Court for the First Division of the Northern District of California stopped the motion. The hearing began and with it commenced a lengthy tussle that dragged on for nearly two years.
After the Immigration Bureau framed separate charges for each individual detainee, the court closed with the following statement: “We conclude, therefore, that the testimony adduced in the present case was sufficient in character and effect upon which to predicate the findings of the immigration officers, and such findings must be held to be final and conclusive.” The Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit then upheld the District Court’s ruling.
In 1915, a new case involving thirty-five Hindus surfaced. But they managed to secure a hearing at the Supreme Court. On February 21, 1917, a couple of weeks after the U.S. Congress passed the Asian Barred Zone Immigration Act, the following communiqué appeared in newspapers under the headline ‘US Admits Error in Excluding Manila Hindus’: “The department of justice today notified Timothy Healy…that it would file on March 6 with the Supreme Court a ‘confession of error’ in the stand taken four years ago when 22 Hindus on arrival here were ordered deported. They arrived from Manila and the U.S. officials held they had no right to enter. This latest move will end the case.” And finally after four years since the incident, the Department of Justice admitted before the apex court that it had been wrong in detaining and deporting subjects of the British Empire who entered mainland U.S. through its insular territories, and withdrew all relevant cases.
32.1 percent of people live in their parents’ house, while 31.6 end up living with spouse or partner in their own homes and the rest live alone as single parent or in a home with renter/roommates.
According to a new analysis done by the Pew Research Center, after 130 years Americans aged between 18–34 are more likely to live with their parents than in other living situations.
“Alone/head of household” includes single parents and people who have roommates or renters living with them; “other” includes those living with family members (not parents), with non-family members or in group housing.
American People who come under the “other” includes those living with different family member (parents), or living in situation like group housing etc. Single parents and people who have roommates or have renters living with them come under “alone/head of household”.
Pew also stated that this percentage is not a record high, for the people living with their parents as in 1940, 35 percent of people in the between that age group lived with their parents.
In those times living with your spouse or partner was a regular practice and popular. But today people prefer to live in alternate living situation, where they live either with mom or dad.
Men and women aged 18-34 in America have different allocation of time spent with parents. For instance men spend 35 percent of their time with parents, 28 percent with spouse or partner. But this is totally different in women’s case as they spend 35 percent of their time with their partner while 29 percent with parents.
The study also says that less educated adults are the ones who are more likely to live with their parents than are their college-educated counterparts due their financial prospects in today’s economy.
Black and Hispanic people are in the same situation when compared with white people.
Black people have always lived their parents since 1980 and it won’t be hard for them to reach a new milestone in this category. Today 17 percent black millennials with their spouse or partner, while 36 percent live with their parents.
White people, Black people, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Women with bachelor’s degrees are still more likely to live with spouses or partners than with their mom and dad.
Pew says unemployment is on rise and especially for male since last 5 years and even those who have jobs are earning less and they become economically dependent on parents and start living with them. Since 1970, due to inflation wages have been continuously falling.
Past decade has also seen fewer marriages between young people. In general, the study actually show how much the situation and standards of 18-34 year-old have changed since 1880, when the data begin.
Once living alone as a single parent or with roommates was rare but today it has become choice and more than 14 percent people live that way.
As the time passed male prosperity increased and more and more started leaving until the wage drop in 60’s and 70 ‘s which cause many to stay with their father’s place.
Women who worked on the other lived with their parents than with partner or spouse. As married women are discouraged from working.
But things have completely changed now and many young women jobs and it’s the unemployed women who more likely to stay with parents. And yet, even as female prosperity rose, so did the number of young women living at home.
-by Bhaskar Raghavendran
Bhaskar is a graduate in Journalism and mass communication and a reporter at NewsGram. Twitter handle: bhaskar_ragha