The Empire awarded imperial colonisers with stolen wealth and freedom just over a century ago, yet we sit today isolated and dispersed, with no individual culture to call our own. Britain is a concept tied together by fragments of international suffrage, and in 2016, over seventeen million Britons fought to maintain this position of power within a global, westernised hierarchy during the Brexit referendum. 

Although what now seems to be in another lifetime, Brexit used to heavily dominate our headlines. The constant back-and-forth between Westminster and Brussels kept many on the edge of their seats, anticipating what life will be like once we finally leave the EU. However, less has been given to the impact this will have on our human rights, more specifically, LGBTQ+ rights. While there has been no dramatic change overnight, despite the transition period having passed, the EU can no longer be used as a preventative barrier to new laws or legislation being overturned.

The most recent legislative move towards fully-legalised abortion in Northern Ireland was hailed as a progressive step for women’s rights. Yet, not even a year after its passage in 2020, an attempt to stall and even reverse this progress has been made by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), who are once again seeking to amend the law.

The election of President Joe Biden was supposed to release a fresh breath of air following the tumultuous four-year reign of Donald Trump. Yet at a recent CNN town hall in Milwaukee, Biden wilted at the opportunity to introduce drastic changes to tackle America's crippling student loan crisis, raising doubts about whether the new President is really a break from the status quo.

In the current world where COVID-19 is the biggest threat to most, Myanmar’s people are risking their lives on the streets, in their homes, and online to fight for their fundamental human rights.

“Now, a third appointment has been confirmed to the Supreme Court to replace the late liberal judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg: Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett is a favourite - little else can explain the dramatic rise of someone who until 2017 had never sat as a justice. “

The UK has survived for centuries without a constitution. This somewhat peculiar arrangement is only paralleled in a handful of countries. In recent years the UK’s constitution has undergone drastic reform, with the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998, the devolution of power to the nations and the creation of the Supreme Court. Is the next step the codification of the constitution?

Coronavirus has led to changes in the way a variety of things are done. This includes voting.  As a result of the pandemic a record number of Americans are expected to make use of postal voting. In addition to the obvious delays in counting, a drastic increase in mail-in ballots could have the impact of opening the floodgates of litigation, requiring the Supreme Court to take action, which could have decisive consequences for the result of the election.

A fair and just court process demands that clients on both sides have competent representation. Why then are some notable ministers trying to villainise lawyers for trying to do what they should to uphold the rule of law? 

Though released in 2016, the issues raised by Ken Loach’s I, Daniel Blake about the changes enacted by the Welfare Reform Act of 2012 have remained just as pressing in 2020. In the midst of loud calls for (what was said to be necessary) austerity, the act saw the introduction of Universal Credit and a simplification of the welfare system to ‘improve incentives to work’. Loach’s film uses emotional drama to highlight the plethora of problems faced by the individuals forced into the benefits system.

Ruth Baber Ginsburg will go down in history as a legal pioneer, feminist icon and above all a beacon of American progress. If you were to trace her career, you would find the remnants of several glass ceilings.

In recent months, Brexit has taken a backseat in most people’s minds. Whilst the saga dominated political, legal and economic news after the decision to leave the European Union (EU) in June 2016, the matter has more recently played second fiddle to the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, Brexit has once again come to the fore as a contentious issue in the lead up to the official end of the UK’s transition period at the end of December, as stipulated by the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement settled in November 2018.

At the height of the unprecedented Coronavirus pandemic the government was required to take drastic steps to counteract the economic fallout. As millions of people were mandated to stay at home and therefore away from work, their means of living, it was exceedingly clear that an eviction ban would be necessary. With the ban on evictions now lifted, there is a backlog of cases which are set to resume.

The decision to scrap the tax follows decades of campaigning by various women’s groups for feminine products categorised by the European Union as “luxury” items, to be considered necessities.

This year, 4,000 people have attempted to cross the English Channel. This does not even include those who were stopped by the French Navy before entering British waters.  The government’s response to the dangerous crossings these migrants were making?  Restrict the viability of these routes, restricting the ability of migrants to exercise their right to apply for asylum.

The government’s recent strategy for tackling obesity calls for more forthright public awareness campaigns, based on the findings of various NHS and Public Health England reports. How does such a proclamation play out in the climate of distrust fostered by the government’s volatile pandemic strategy? And how can the government ensure its warnings are received as credible rather than questionable?

Abolition is asking for a reimaging and restructuring of how we see our interactions with one another. It asks us to remove the limitations on our imaginations and create a new world for all.