A snapshot in time of English folk music, queer visibility, and gender non-conformity Alex Garden is a fiddle player, guitarist, composer, and producer with a unique approach as a result of ten years experience performing folk, classical, and improvised music around the UK. Alex uses they/them pronouns. Their projects include The Drystones, Sheelanagig, Tarren, Harriet Riley & Alex Garden, The Terra Collective, and The Longest Johns, and they also produce a variety of collaborative work as a recording artist alongside this. Their longest running project, The Drystones, has been nominated for the BBC Young Folk Award and received an Arts Council England project grant in 2021 for a new tour, with a mission to involve more younger audiences in UK Folk music.  CJLPA : How were you introduced to folk music, and what encouraged you to pursue your passion for folk music as a career?   Alex Garden : As a child from a Scottish family living in England I was introduced to ceilidhs and traditional songs and tunes. This, combined with a proximity to the incredible Priddy Folk Festival in Somerset and encouragement from an amazing violin teacher, led me to playing folk tunes on the fiddle in my free time. As teenagers at our local comprehensive school, Ford Collier and I discovered an overlapping passion for traditional music and we started playing together as The Drystones when we were around fifteen.[1] Along our journey we were very fortunate with the experiences we had, such as playing at Glastonbury Festival multiple times, appearing on BBC radio programs, supporting our heroes onstage, and producing our debut studio album. The opportunity for young people to have these experiences and to truly believe that they can make a living out of their music is very rare. We were extremely lucky to have been given the space and time to develop as young musicians and it's something I cherish every day.   A career in folk music is not particularly glamorous or financially lucrative. I seem to spend a lot of time in fields, motorway service stations, and the odd night sleeping on hay bales in a barn. However, the community, creativity, and the love it brings me is incredible.   CJLPA : What is your approach to instrumental music? What makes it unique?   AG : My approaches to all music vary from project to project, and day to day. Some projects, like my trio Tarren, are rooted in specific traditions; in this case the English tradition.[2] Others, like The Drystones, are informed by folk music more broadly, and fuse electronic, techno, and prog genres together. Then there are more theatrical shows with Sheelanagig, and a unique duo project with Harriet Riley on vibraphone which brings together folk, minimalism, and jazz through entirely new compositions.[3] Generally, I love writing and improvising new music within a broader view to reworking old material. One constant throughout my work is trying to achieve perpetual fresh perspectives within the living tradition.   CJLPA : Tarren has recently been awarded a grant from the English Folk Dance and Song Society, which you are using to research gender in English traditional song. How is harmful gender discrimination visible in English traditional song and folk music more broadly?   AG : When we talk about folk music we are generally discussing music, dance and text, which dates back to a time where this material was passed on and recycled through the aural tradition. This works a little like the game Chinese whispers, where each time the material is passed from person to person it changes slightly, either by accident or deliberately. The reason many of these songs still exist today is that they were being transcribed and written down by folk song collectors, such as Cecil Sharp, who was mostly active during the Edwardian period. Sharp is a controversial figure often accused of being racist and fascist. However, in order to keep this section about gender and music, I will let you do your own reading around this to form your own judgements. Through the work of these collectors, we see that that a lot of songs, tunes, and texts have a wide diaspora across the country, across the world in some cases, with significant localised nuances and variations.   Gender and class equality issues come into play for several reasons during this collecting process. Firstly, the songs themselves were often collected by men from other men, because both the academic pursuit of folk song collecting and many of the working environments where the songs were sung were inaccessible to women. Many of the songs collected during this time, known as the ‘first revival’ in England, were misogynistic and violent towards women, often mistreating them in a variety of barbaric ways.   The famous Anglo-American ballad ‘Pretty Polly’ serves as an example. The male protagonist, an unnamed ships carpenter, promises to marry Polly and subsequently murders her when she becomes pregnant before the wedding, burying her in a shallow grave. I’ve heard this song being sung in folk clubs many times and it’s often sung with a kind of apathy for the message or meaning behind the text and being glorified simply for being part of the tradition. This is just one example of many songs.   There are also old songs which can be said to promote transphobia, which is surprising as we generally regard trans visibility in Western culture to be something which appears much later on in the late 20th century. The song ‘The Close Shave’ (and various other versions) tells the story of a sailor coming into port after a long time at sea to trade gold. He meets a pretty maid and they spend the night together. When he wakes in the morning, his gold is gone and instead he finds a woman’s dress, a wig, and a shaving kit. The song’s pinnacle is the line “my pretty maid’s a man’ I cried, and thanks be I fell asleep, for I’d rather lose a bag of gold than wake up with that creep’. Here, we see an attempt at humour at the expense of a cross-dressing character which plays into the narrative that men are often unfairly and deliberately deceived into being attracted to trans people, and teaches that it is acceptable to shame them. I’m very much in favour of musical humour and taking traditional material with a pinch of salt, but I’ve experienced this song being sung by all ages and watched as they all sing the line ‘wake up with that creep’ while smiling and laughing.   I think we need to take more responsibility when we are working with older material, acknowledging its shortcomings and educating audiences and performers about the dangerous messages hidden in these songs. They can be sung with better sensitivity, understanding, and context. For example, sometimes the meaning of a narrative can be flipped with a few simple edits. We can learn so much from history and folklore; let’s not simply erase it. Instead let’s use our critical faculties to interrogate the parts of our history we are not happy with.   Unfortunately, gender inequality in the English music industry extends to the present day at gigs and festivals. I have heard so many anecdotes from friends and colleagues where they have been mistreated, patronised, and embarrassed as performers because they identify as a woman, a trans person or non-binary identity. A friend who identifies as a woman was asked by her manager in public whether she has an ‘OnlyFans’ account (a user generated content site which is primarily used by sex workers to post pornographic material). A different woman’s performance was interrupted by a male sound engineer who said that she didn’t know how to tune her instrument, and another friend was sexually assaulted by venue staff.   On an everyday level we see constant micro-aggressions, such as women on stage only being described as ‘beautiful’ or ‘gorgeous’ whereas in the same breath men are described as ‘talented’ and ‘masterful’. This is so damaging to our beloved industry, and to the individuals who make this musical community thrive. If you witness any of these behaviours, please call them out. If you perpetrate any of these behaviours, please stop, retreat, seek help, and learn from your mistakes.   CJLPA : Why did you feel that it was important to use this grant to address gender discrimination in folk music culture?   AG : Folk music in the UK is like a massive extended family. It includes people from all around the world, from every background, and is constantly in flux. It is the community which accepted me with open arms as a young person, taught me everything I know about performing, and gave me the career I have today. The same is true for many of my friends, and I know they hold this community very close to their hearts.   Much like in any other industry, it is paramount that we tackle discrimination in order to keep everyone safe and to continue welcoming new people from all backgrounds. If we don’t do this, there will be no fresh perspectives, no innovation, and no new ideas coming to the fore. The living tradition exists because it constantly interrogates and challenges itself to solve problems and to drive forward into new fields.   Writing in 2023, I am seeing huge changes happening in UK folk. Music is becoming more influenced by other cultures from around the world; it is delving into the world of electronic music and high production value, it is finding its place in gamer and fantasy culture, and it is cross-pollinating into many more disciplines which I don’t have the time to list. It also occasionally flirts with mainstream pop music, and achieves moments of viral, global popularity mostly thanks to social media. It is more important than ever that we address issues around discrimination in order to keep the genre and the community alive and thriving for generations to come.   CJLPA : You have previously spoken about how you chose to come out to wider circles through the article you wrote with Trans portraits. How was this received by your friends and your wider circle?   AG : ‘Coming out’ is a process which varies a lot from person to person. For me, perhaps ‘transition’ better defines my process, as it implies an ongoing period of time between one state and another, as opposed to representing a fixed point in time where there was a change. The article I wrote for Trans Portraits UK in 2022 was an opportunity, not only to describe my initial experiences of being openly non-binary, but also to put this into words for myself at the time, early on in the process.[4] This equates to a time of healing and self-education, whilst letting other people know all the fascinating things I am discovering about gender along the way.   In the article I focused on the euphoric aspect of transitioning, and made suggestions for how other people can make life easier for non-binary and trans folk around them. I had very positive responses from friends and the wider music community, and it has helped me form connections with other queer musicians, facilitated some fascinating conversation, and hopefully played a small role in spreading awareness of trans issues within the traditional music community.   As I have travelled from place to place playing music in the wake of transition, I have noticed myself create this kind of utopia in my mind of how things could be made a lot easier for the non-binary and trans community. I refer to this through the rest of the article.   CJLPA : As a gender non-conforming musician, how do you express yourself on stage, both in terms of image and through your music, and how do these forms of expression make you feel?   AG : My overall performance practice hasn’t changed a lot since I transitioned. However, the way I feel has changed a lot. Having fun, getting lost in music, and being playful is what it’s all about when I’m performing now. Everything, from the way I move to the way I speak and dress, feels more authentic now the pressure of needing to conform to a binary identity has been lifted.   The way I dress varies, in correlation with my gender-fluidity and an understandable desire to be physically comfortable on stage. Some days I’m feeling more femme and others more neutral. More often than not I’ll be found at a festival sporting some brightly-coloured dungarees, some mud stains, cat-eye sunglasses, and messy hair.   In UK folk music, I’m proud to be flying the flag for gender non-conforming musicians, and I feel extremely lucky to live in a world where we have developed the language and recognition of non-binary gender to facilitate this.   CJLPA : Did you face any challenges growing up as a non-binary person in a rural area where there were few queer spaces? What spaces should be made for non-binary/gender non-conforming people who are unsure about their identity growing up?   AG : Young people have a lot on their plate. While going through the various ordeals and dramas of education and finding an area in which to eventually earn a living, they also need to work out who they are and what their purpose is, on an existential level. We all go through a lot of experimentation in order to draw conclusions on our identity in an often turbulent trial and error process. We try something, we see how it fits, and either keep it up or lose it, and in order to feel secure in our conclusions we need to have just the right support, space, validation, and encouragement from our peers and guardians. Reflecting now, I have been extremely lucky in this regard.   Something that troubled me is the idea of needing to conform to behaviours and appearances of my assigned gender at birth. It took me until I was an adult to realise that this thing that was giving my subconscious such a hard time was an issue that could be addressed by simply looking at my identity in a different way. I recognised my freedom as a grown-up and met other gender-queer folk pursuing a career in the arts thanks to the creative urban hub in Bristol I now call home. Naturally, this process began introspectively and then became something I decided to present outwardly when I was ready.   Having always had a slight fascination with music and the way we develop as musicians, I have found that there are some gendered trends in terms of who learns what instrument, which is particularly noticeable in young musicians. In broad strokes, my experience is that young boys prefer to negotiate a masculine identity and seek catharsis through music, typically learning guitar, drums, or bass and starting bands with perhaps more rhythm and aggression. Young girls seek a broader range of creative outlets and tend to start by learning piano, bowed strings, woodwind, and vocals. This accompanies a noticeable attitude of self confidence in the former group, who mirror the behaviours of professional musicians they have seen live and on screen, whereas the latter group are sometimes more introverted in their approach, participating for self-development  and social aspects of music.   Although there are many academics who have weighed in with fascinating discourse on why this might be, one sees similarities when looking back to the nineteenth century, when women were excluded from public performance and instead encouraged to participate in music purely in private. The same was largely true for composers, conductors, and many other public-facing roles in the music industry. Perhaps we still carry this bias today.   Now, in the twenty-first century, we see the music industry progressing towards more even distribution of roles with regards to gender, race and class. For example, many orchestras have adopted blind audition processes to eliminate discrimination based on anything other than musicianship. However, there is still more work to be done to change our core beliefs and attitudes, particularly for young people, which result in stark imbalances in some parts of the music industry. For example, there are fewer women with jobs in percussion than there are men called David with jobs in percussion.[5]   Not everyone wants to learn music, so speaking more broadly, I will talk you through a few ideas and scenarios which may amount to safer and more encouraging environments for a young queer or questioning person.   Having a lack of queer role models as a young person can lead to them feeling hidden themselves, as they have no-one to show them that queer can also mean successful, happy, and empowered. This, combined with a culture of transphobic and homophobic language from peers, can amount to an extremely hostile place. It is important that we prioritise diversity in our educators, and expose young people to gender non-conforming people or cis-gendered people in roles which traditionally would have been taken by another gender. For the purposes of creating our fictional utopia, let’s have more male textiles teachers, female football teachers, and a couple of non-binary history teachers for good measure.   Spaces with gender allocation are very important too. Changing rooms and bathrooms can be hostile environments for those who are experimenting with gender or transitioning, particularly young and vulnerable people. I would love to see more allocation of safe, gender-neutral spaces alongside separate gendered spaces, and an attitude shift which seeks to educate young people about gender and encourage acceptance and safer behaviour.   The UK government has recently made two very dangerous moves with regards to this. Firstly they have said that the ‘rise in gender neutral toilets’ creates privacy issues and unfair disadvantage in a fairly obvious attempt to draw false equivalences between women’s rights and trans rights, as part of an ongoing anti-trans agenda (more on this later).[6] Secondly, Rishi Sunak said that new government guidelines will include rules about when schools must inform parents about children questioning their gender. Triggers for this are vaguely defined at the time of writing, but can include a young person experimenting with or changing their name, pronouns, or uniform. This is a very dangerous move from a safeguarding perspective, as it will effectively see teachers being forced to ‘out’ trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming pupils to their parents or guardians without their consent and without the time or space to safely develop their identity. Even if a young person simply wants to experiment with their appearance, play in a different sports team, or try different pronouns, this leaves the door wide open for systemic abuse, restricts the young person’s autonomy on a basic level, and can lead to homelessness.   According to the AKT youth homelessness report (2021), half of LGBTQIA+ young people said they feared that expressing their identity to family members would lead to them being evicted.[7] Research from Stonewall shows that almost one in five LGBTQIA+ young people have experienced homelessness in their lives, and those rates climb to one in four amongst trans people.[8] Schools are meant to be safe spaces; in many cases the time a young person spends at school is the only time of the day when they are safe. We need to challenge the government on these guidelines, and we need to ensure that young queer or questioning people are protected and treated with the respect they deserve.   CJLPA : Have you faced any challenges as a non-binary musician and, if so, how do you think these challenges could be addressed?   AG : In terms of the intersection between my gender and career, I feel very lucky to admit that I haven’t faced many specific challenges as a musician so far… other than being mis-gendered a lot. The issues I face day-to-day are most likely ones that are shared by all non-binary and trans people when they are out and about. Working in music means that I have the advantage of working in a wide variety of hospitality settings each year, seeing a lot of different approaches to LGBTQIA+ inclusivity in those spaces, and opening up conversation about it with people who work there. This includes everything from fancy modern arts centres, to barns, city venues, sticky clubs, wedding venues, and, of course, festivals. I see a lot of different types of changing rooms, public toilets, and green rooms, and always breathe a sigh of relief when there is a dedicated genderless space for people like me who experience dysphoria in binary gendered environments.   The main issue I face, and I am sure all my other trans or non-binary friends would echo this, is being constantly mis-gendered or misunderstood. Despite my efforts to speak publicly about issues non-binary people face, to send over information to relevant parties in advance, and to kindly remind people, where relevant, I still get referred to with the wrong pronouns in public while at work. Often this is simply a compère not having enough information, a missed opportunity to ask a question at the right time, a basic slip of the tongue, or another entirely forgivable mistake. However, it does matter. Back to my gender-inclusive utopia, I would love to see a music industry in the UK which champions inclusivity and diversity in every way by working on the language it uses and the questions it asks.   If you work in the music industry, here is a little list of things you can do to make some positive differences to gender non-conforming folk: Practice pronouns. If you don’t already know, simply ask politely; Ensure that information about artists, staff, and crew which is passed on to other staff is accurate, up-to-date, and includes everyone’s pronouns; and Avoid saying ‘ladies and gentlemen’ when addressing a crowd. Say ‘they-dys and gentle-thems’ instead, or ‘ladies, gentlemen, and everyone in between’. If you say it confidently and quickly I promise the only people in the crowd who will notice the difference are those to whom it matters the most.   CJLPA : What are some common misconceptions about non-binary people?   AG : There are a few common misconceptions I hear regularly about non-binary people that I would like to address.   First, we are all androgynous . This is simply not true, and doesn’t work as a way to identify someone and make assumptions about them. Some of us play with androgyny, some or all of the time, but there are also plenty of cis-gendered people who present androgyny too and don’t identify as non-binary. The best way around this is to remember it is never wise to make assumptions about anyone based on appearance, even if you may have heard others do this before without consequence. It’s dangerous and can cause harm even if you don’t intend it.   Second, we’re offended every time you refer to us with the wrong pronouns or salutation/title . We are all human; we make mistakes and move on and that’s totally fine. Most non-binary people get mis-gendered quite a lot and won’t have a problem as long as you are trying your best, offer a correction, and you don’t make a fuss about it. The worst thing for me sometimes isn’t the act of being mis-gendered, it’s the aftermath of having to reassure and re-inflate someone’s slightly bruised ego after a barrage of disproportionate apologies from them. Just acknowledge the mistake and politely move on; it’s ok to make mistakes. That said, deliberate mis-gendering is an act of violence and should never be tolerated under any circumstance.   As a side-note, in my experience, words like ‘man’, ‘dude’, ‘guys’, and ‘mate’ are usually not seen as particularly gendered by most people these days. It’s often the tone and the context in which you use these words which is likely to cause someone dysphoria—we just have to make sure we’re vigilant with our language and if we’re not sure of something, ask.   Third, ‘cisgender’ is a slur. The Oxford English Dictionary defines cisgender as ‘describing or connected with people whose sense of personal identity and gender is the same as their birth sex’.[9] It’s as simple as that; nothing more, nothing less. No matter what you might have heard Piers Morgan say, this word is not intended to divide or insult people. Rather, it is necessary as part of the terminology which allows trans and non-binary people to exist, enabling us to define everyone fairly in reference to their assigned gender at birth. If you find this word offensive, I’d suggest this is due to an internalised transphobia which you may have picked up from TV, films, newspapers, and social media. Don’t worry, we can all become better allies no matter where we are coming from and there’s never been a better time to access the resources you need to self-educate about gender variance.   Fourth, we all use they/them pronouns.  Wouldn’t that be nice and simple? I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that. There are a plethora of gender-neutral pronouns which folk use (like ze/hir, xe/xem, fae/faer etcetera), and many people use a combination such as she/they, where multiple types of pronouns can be used to refer to that person. Some people, whose gender is more fluid for example, will constantly vary the pronouns they use in accordance with their experience. The point is, all pronouns are equally important as part of our language. We all have them and we can all use the correct ones when referring to others if we make the effort.   Fifth, pronouns are a preference . Whenever you see ‘preferred pronouns’ said out loud, written on a form, or on a list of options, politely call it out. ‘Preferred’ implies that they are optional and that others can choose which pronouns they use to refer to you (usually he/her). This is not correct. Pronouns can only be decided by the individual, and it’s important we reflect that in the language we use (for example, I do not prefer  they/them pronouns, I actively use they/them pronouns).   Finally, you can infer someone’s sexual orientation by the fact that they are trans/non-binary . This feels really obvious to say. However, I’ve seen so many examples of this assumption being made and it causing someone dysphoria or putting them in danger. Gender and sexuality are not the same thing and are not inherently linked in any way. Any person can experience a gender and a sexuality at the same time and there are no useful correlations. Never assume someone’s sexual orientation, full stop. It’s pretty rude, you can cause genuine harm, and most of the time you’ll probably get it wrong.   CJLPA : How can friends or allies of non-binary people support you?   AG : There are plenty of ways in which friends or allies can support and actively make life better for gender non-conforming folk. I’ve made lots of suggestions elsewhere in this article, so in order not to repeat myself I’ll go into more detail on three main areas which I feel require some work.   Firstly, feeling understood.  If you want to be a better ally as a part of modern western culture, one of the simplest things you can do is go and learn about the incredibly diverse and fascinating history of gender variance around the world and gain an understanding that, despite much of this language being fairly new to us at the moment, gender-variant identities are an ancient and wide-spread practice for humanity. For example, learn about the Hijra communes in South Asia whose origins go back to 400BC and still exist today, indigenous North American Two-Sprit people who traditionally, but not exclusively, fulfil a gender-variant identity, and the Ancient-Egyptian Sekhet which refers to a third gender that does not include men or women and dates back over 4000 years. This is just scratching the surface. Along the way, you’ll read some harrowing stories of how western colonisation has attempted to misrepresent, erase, and exterminate many of these communities, and discover how important it is that we learn about these amazing people. Be aware as you read, lots of the research you find will have been conducted through the western lens of binary gender and you may come across cultural appropriation too (for example, someone wrongly referring to themselves as these identities despite not belonging to these cultures and ethnic groups). Noticing this is an important step in the process. As an outsider, the hope is that when we see and start to understand the hundreds of cultures who have accepted gender-variance successfully before. This gives hope for western society becoming more accepting too.   Secondly, feeling seen. Through a little healthy pedantry we can help a marginalised group in society feel more seen by using the right language. This is so important to building a world which not only validates but celebrates those groups. Be pedantic when it comes to pronouns (they, he, she, etc), salutations (Sir, Madam etc) and honorifics (Mr, Ms, Mrs, Mx etc). Never make assumptions, and if you’re not completely sure (and you actually need to know) ask, don’t assume. In case you were wondering, I use the honorific Mx which is often not included on forms. Similarly to the common honorific Ms (the modern understanding of which we have to thank those brave, pioneering, early twentieth-century feminists), Mx has developed for a reason in order to allow a group of people access to basic things. I’ve made it my mission to call out each and every instance where this is not an option on a form, and have generally been met with companies and institutions happy to change their process once I’ve explained it. There are a few disappointing exceptions I’ve encountered, such as energy giant British Gas, who have still not even responded to me after a year of emails about the matter. In these cases, when Mx is not an option, I’m slightly reluctant to admit in an academic journal, I use the honorific Dr as it’s often the only gender neutral option. My degree is a BA but maybe British Gas could pay for my doctorate one day by means of compensation?   I find it bizarre that, in the UK, companies will often provide options for honourifics like Dame, Lord, Lady, Admiral, and Excellency, without a simple Mx. They also commonly include Christian honorifics such as Reverend or Father, whilst not including them from other major religions such as Islam or Judaism. Call this out. It may seem very insignificant to you, but it will mean a lot to someone out there if we can create options for everyone. Take note if you happen to work designing a form for anything other than medical reasons; perhaps don’t ask for someone’s personal information you don’t need to know. The number of times I’ve been asked my gender for no reason whatsoever is astonishing. Most of the time it is simply irrelevant; we are just taught and accept that we can know someone’s gender without questioning why.   Finally, challenge the government on systemic transphobia.  The UK government have recently announced that trans people will be banned from gendered wards in NHS hospitals, claimed that ‘they know what a woman is’ and said that the ‘rise in gender neutral toilets’ is a problem and have issued regulations ensuring that all new public buildings will have ‘separate male and female toilets’. [10][11] Whilst I agree that having separate toilets for men and women alongside gender neutral spaces is probably the way forward for now, there are several things about this I find very disturbing.   Firstly, the government is actively choosing to allocate space for binary genders, whilst diminishing responsibility for planners and architects to allocate spaces for gender-nonconforming people. If there was no anti-trans agenda here then why would they not simply allocate for all three? Most public toilets come in threes anyway.   Secondly, the government has said very little on the matter of allocation of toilets for disabled people who face a basic lack of access and provision in most public spaces. Many public disabled toilets currently don’t have safety rails, hoists or even ramp access. If they wanted everyone to benefit from reviewing public toilet regulations, surely this is the area which needs the most work.   Thirdly, the research on which this decision was based directly contradicts it. You can read the study for yourself on the government website; their call for evidence presents that 83% of responses are in favour of non-gendered toilet provision whereas 12% are in favour of separate gender toilets only.[12] It also shows that safety concerns for trans or non-binary people using public toilets outweigh those for any other group. Their plan to ‘protect public toilet provisions for men and women’ is a purely political move which uses coded transphobic language and draws a false equivalence between trans people existing freely and the removal of protections for cis-gendered women. If 48% of trans people feel unsafe using public toilets (again, the government’s own research) then why is the government putting forward regulation which harms them? In addition, policing these spaces and promoting this mentality has, and will, also affect cis folk through beauty and behaviour standards, encouraging them to self-police and requiring them to look and dress in certain ways to access those spaces.   The bottom line here is that trans rights do not take away cis-gendered peoples’ rights, and we can challenge the government on this through petitions and well-informed, high-quality journalism. For example, fighting for all women’s rights against the larger issue (the patriarchy) helps all women. More rights for trans and non-binary folk does not equal fewer rights for cis women and men.   CJLPA : Where are your favourite queer-spaces and venues in Bristol?   AG : There are plenty of safe spaces for queer people to enjoy in Bristol and it’s one of the reasons I am so deeply in love with this beautiful city. Strange Brew is a venue I talk about a lot as it has one of the best examples of how to do toilets. Three options are provided—urinals, gender neutral cubicles, and women’s only cubicles. I have never felt unsafe with that system, nor have I ever heard anyone take issue with it. I’ve never seen any queues, even when the venue is sold out, because everyone is catered for based on what they actually need. Take note venue architects! They also host amazing jam nights, live gigs, quizzes, drag, comedy, the lot.   Other great spaces include Lost Horizon, Jam Jar, The Gallimaufry, Old Market Assembly, St George’s, and my local pub, The Greenbank, where I run a twice-monthly inclusive folk session which anyone is welcome to attend. This interview was conducted by Abi Dore, a Legal Researcher for the Human Rights Volume of CJLPA 3. In addition to her role at CJLPA, Abi is currently working as a Trainee Lawyer and will qualify as a lawyer in England and Wales in February 2024. [1] The Drystones < https://www.thedrystones.co.uk/ > accessed 17 October 2023. [2] Tarren < https://tarrenmusic.com/ > accessed 17 October 2023. [3] Bob Fish, ‘Harriet Riley & Alex Garden’ — Sonder III’ ( Folk Radio UK ,   13 October 2023)   < https://www.folkradio.co.uk/2023/10/harriet-riley-alex-garden-sonder-iii/ > accessed 19 October 2023. [4] ‘Alex Garden’ ( Trans Portraits UK , 2022) < https://www.transportraitsuk.org/alex-garden > accessed 19 October 2013. [5] Emily Gunton, ‘Bang the drum for change: why do orchestras have so few female percussionists?’ Guardian (London, 8 March 2021) < https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/mar/08/why-do-orchestras-have-so-few-women-percussionists > accessed 20 October 2023. [6] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and The Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP, ‘All public buildings to have separate male and female toilets’ ( Gov.uk , 4 July 2022) < https://www.gov.uk/government/news/all-public-buildings-to-have-separate-male-and-female-toilets > accessed 20 October 2023. [7] < https://www.akt.org.uk/youth-homelessness-report-2021 >. [8] Chaka L Bachmann and Becca Gooch, ‘LGBT in Britain: Trans Report’ ( Stonewall ) < https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_-_trans_report_final.pdf > accessed 20 October 2023. [9] ‘Cisgender’ ( Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries )   < https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cisgender#:~:text=%2F%CB%8Cs%C9%AAs%CB%88d%CA%92end%C9%99r%2F,same%20as%20their%20birth%20sex > accessed 20 October 2023. [10] Aubrey Allegretti, ‘Trans hospital patients in England to be banned from female- and male-only wards’ Guardian (London, 3 October 2023) < https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/03/trans-hospital-patients-in-england-to-be-banned-from-female--and-male-only-wards > accessed 20 October 2023. [11] Badenoch (n 6). [12] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, ‘Toilet provision for men and women: call for evidence—analysis of responses received’ ( Gov.uk , 13 August 2023) < https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/toilet-provision-for-men-and-women-call-for-evidence/public-feedback/toilet-provision-for-men-and-women-call-for-evidence-analysis-of-responses-received > accessed 20 October 2023.

Ronald W Meister is a distinguished legal professional serving as Senior Counsel at Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman in New York City. Holding the prestigious role of Chairman of the Board at the National Institute of Military Justice, Meister brings a wealth of experience in litigation across federal, state, and military trial and appellate courts. With a background as a military judge and a history of representing active duty reserve and former military personnel, his legal journey is marked by expertise and dedication. Notably, Meister has played a significant role in legal matters around Guantanamo Bay, defending in 2014 a Navy nurse refusing to continue force-feeding detainees. His impactful contributions to the legal landscape make Ronald Meister a standout figure in the field. CJLPA : We are pleased to welcome you today, Mr. Ronald Meister, to interview with The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art . By way of introduction, you are currently a Senior Counsel at Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman and Chairman of the Board of the National Institute of Military Justice. Prior to this, you concentrated on litigation and federal, state, and military trial and appellate courts. You were also formerly a military judge and represented active duty reserve and former military and personnel among your vast experience. You also offered your legal services at Guantanamo Bay, which is what we would like to focus our interview on today. To begin, in July 2014, it was reported that a Navy nurse refused to continue force-feeding detainees at Guantanamo Bay. You acted as lead attorney for this former Guantanamo nurse. Can you please tell us what prompted you to take on this case?   Ronald W Meister : Well, as you mentioned, I served as a Navy JAG ( Judge Advocate General ) officer and as a defence counsel and military judge during the Vietnam era. I have continued my involvement in military justice since then and to this day as chair of an organisation called the National Institute of Military Justice. I have been involved in Guantanamo matters, coordinating an observer program for NIMJ and travelling to Guantanamo. I have written briefs on Guantanamo Bay cases for the US Supreme Court. When this case arose, I was contacted by a retired brigadier general, who had been involved with an organisation called ‘Physicians for Human Rights’. He brought the case to my attention and asked if I would be willing to represent the nurse, which was the kind of case my education and experience had prepared me for and would be interested in doing.   CJLPA : Particularly in this case, the nurse faced a potential discharge from the military for refusing to continue administrating force-feedings at Guantanamo. How did the Navy explain the complaint against them?   RM : The Navy is not in the business of explaining, the Navy is in the business of ordering. And they wanted the medical personnel at Guantanamo to do certain things. And they are unhappy when they do not do them. To the extent that there was any explanation at all, they expressed, perhaps regarding it as compassionate, a desire to prevent prisoners from committing suicide by refusing to eat.   CJLPA : From your observation of this case, was force-feeding a means of discouraging the detainees’ protests against their living conditions, or rather an attempt to prevent them from risking death?   RM : There is no doubt that they are trying to discourage protests. There is no evidence that any detainee was on the verge of death from a hunger strike. They wanted to discourage prisoners from conducting what they called ‘asymmetrical warfare’. The Navy had the guns, the military had the ammunition, and the person had nothing, so they were fighting back with the only available tools. And one form of protest was to engage in a hunger strike.   CJLPA : Could you discuss the legal obstacles you encountered while taking on this case and how you overcame them?   RM : The principal philosophical obstacle was the ingrained military habit of obeying orders, which are presumed to be legal. And there is considerable difficulty to carry the burden of proving that the order is illegal. We also faced a Supreme Court decision from 1950 called Johnson v. Eisentrager , which held that US courts had no jurisdiction over German prisoners of war held outside the geographic boundaries of the United States. So, the Eisentrager  case had been upheld and enforced by that time over the years and was a precedential obstacle that had to be overcome or distinguished.   CJLPA :   Eventually, the US Navy dropped all charges against the nurse. What factors do you think played a key role in this outcome?   RM : Well, they did not tell us why. As I said, they are not in the business of explaining. We had enlisted the support of some extremely helpful organisations, who felt that the vindication of nursing ethical obligations was important, principally Physicians for Human Rights, which I mentioned before. We also succeeded in getting the help of the American Nurses Association, which was very vigorous in support of our client and ultimately, at the conclusion of the case, granted him an ethics award—the first one they had ever issued. We got some support to a lesser degree from the American Medical Association. This profoundly conservative organisation was less enthusiastic, at least at the outset, than the American Nurses Association. But they did help.   Presumably, due to the attention focused on the case, the Department of Defense, which has a Committee on Medical Ethics, ultimately issued a statement supporting our position. That was persuasive once we had some support within the Department of Defense. I think a couple of other things that helped us are that the nurse himself had a highly admirable military record. He had, by that time, over 17 years of service. He had asked the Navy to send him to nursing school, which they did, where, among other things, he learned nursing ethics.   We also never disclosed his identity because we wanted to avoid any possible argument that he was doing this for publicity or his career. Even after the charges were dropped, even after efforts to bar his successful retirement from the Navy were over, and after he retired and started receiving his military pension, we did not disclose his name. So, indeed, when the ANA granted him its ethics award, I accepted it on his behalf and ultimately delivered it to him. We used to call him ‘Lawrence Nightingale’. But we never disclosed his actual name.   CJLPA : In this case, it seems that the court of public opinion or the pressure of publicity was not necessary to get the Navy to drop charges, but rather just the internal investigations and the dialogue between both sides.   RM : There was a degree of press attention to the case in the military and civilian press. So again, while we did not receive or expect an explanation, I think all of those factors together persuaded the people making the decisions ultimately to drop this case.   CJLPA : In addition to representing the Navy nurse, you also prepared the brief for the National Institute of Military Justice as amicus in support of petitioners in respect to the Rasul v. Bush   case. For our viewers, Rasul v. Bush   was the landmark US Supreme Court case that decided that US courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus  petitions filed on behalf of the foreign nationals imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. I would like to ask you a few questions about this brief used in respect to Rasul . Reflecting now, what was the strongest legal argument in that brief that ultimately won the court over and why?   RM : There is no evidence that any arguments we made in our amicus brief made a difference to the court. There were a huge number of amicus briefs filed in support of the petitioners in the three related cases Rasul ,  Padilla , and Hamdi . And there is no mention anywhere in all the Supreme Court opinions in all three cases of any of the amicus  briefs. We made arguments that included domestic and international law arguments, and arguments specifically grounded in the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory, and which is binding in US courts. None of the international law arguments entered the court’s opinion. That is not to say that the pressure of some arguments was ineffective. We just do not see that described as the rationale for the decisions in the case.   CJLPA : In the brief, you exposed the double standards in the application of the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, or the GPW under international law, whereby the US government declared the detainees to be outside the law, such that none of the existing rules governing the treatment of individuals detained in combat applied. Meanwhile, the US expected other nations to abide by international law and extend protections to Americans captured or detained in armed conflict. What impact, if any, do you think this double standard has had on the US?   RM : Well, let’s talk about what arguments were ultimately persuasive. You have to read behind the opinions and try to deduce what caused the Supreme Court to come out the way it did. The ultimate factor, I think, is that the idea that Guantanamo Bay was outside of the law, outside of US law, outside of international law, was too much for a majority of the Supreme Court to swallow.   Courts have been telling the executive in the United States for years what it cannot do. That goes back to Marbury v. Madison   under   Chief Justice Marshall in the early 1800s. It most famously came to a head in the Steel Seizure Case ( Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer ) in the US Supreme Court. So it is not unfamiliar for the Supreme Court to say to the executive, ‘you cannot do this’. And I think the effort of principally Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to create a place in Guantanamo that was totally outside the law—domestic law, international law, Cuban law, any kind of law—where there would be no accountability whatsoever, was too much for the court to swallow. So, while in Rasul , the case in which we submitted our brief, the court relied exclusively on US domestic law and, to some extent, its roots in the English common law, I think when you take the three cases together and the many opinions, there may have been a bit of cover for a desire to apply some of the standards of international law, though they never said it.   The most important of these is Justice O’Connor’s opinion in the Hamdi case. Justice O’Connor wrote for four justices that there was accountability . She never uses the words Geneva Convention. But she writes an opinion that gives Hamdi and those in his condition procedural rights equivalent to what is provided in the Geneva Conventions, though she never says that. She makes up a structure that she says is applicable, including the right to counsel and knowledge of the charges against you. And she just says, these would be good things, and we think that, as on oversight of the justice system you ought to be doing this.   Well, we have  a structure. You do not need to make these things up. We have a document interpreted to tell you what kind of rights people have. It’s called the United States Constitution. And because of that, Justice Scalia, who I think it is fair to say, was a more sophisticated thinker on constitutional issues than Justice O’Connor was, just tears this opinion apart. He says: ‘You are making up a constitution’. But it worked for her and for the three judges who joined her, and then for the two other judges who joined the plurality opinion, to make a decision in the case. So, while you cannot find in the opinion a reliance on international law, you do if you read it in a certain way, as I do, and you find that the concepts of international law are what turned the tables in that case. So that is the background.   You asked me about the double standard. Other countries regularly point out the hypocrisy of the United States in preaching to them what they can do with prisoners, what they can do on the battlefield, what kind of force can be used, when the US itself is a principal purveyor of torture, and is a principal purveyor of massive retaliation, as for example in Iraq, and that decreases this country’s credibility when it seeks to enforce standards on the others.   CJLPA : You mentioned how Justice O’Connor discusses international law concepts without explicitly referring to international law. Why do you think there is a reluctance to rely on international law within the judgment specifically?   RM : There has been a long unwillingness in this country to submit its conduct to international oversight and control. At least in our modern memory, it goes back to our unwillingness to join the League of Nations after World War I. There has certainly been a trend of isolationism in the history of this country, unwillingness to submit to certain international tribunals, and a feeling that we know what is best for ourselves. Still, at the same time, we tell other people what is best for them based on our standards. And one of the great exceptions to that was this country’s adherence to the Geneva Conventions. And if you look at the background and the rationale of those provisions, much of it is with the understanding that it protects US forces: if we adopt these standards and comply with them, we have a stronger argument that our forces fighting overseas will be protected. I wonder if that concept prevails to the present day and certainly it was not at the forefront of Secretary Rumsfeld’s mind, when he said, ‘We are going to put people in a position without rules’.   CJLPA : You also set out various protections and guarantees codified in the military justice system, including the right against self-incrimination, the right against cruel and unusual punishment, or the right to a speedy trial. The detainees went through military courts, and yet none of the detainees ever got to realise these rights. Why?   RM : Well, it is not accurate to call these people detainees. The government, the Defense Department, wants to call these people detainees, as if they are just waiting for a bus to come along. They are prisoners, long-term prisoners. They are prisoners in very harsh conditions. So, some people prefer to refer to them as prisoners. Whatever the term you use, these are neither military courts nor courts-martial. The rights we describe in our brief are those that developed under, most recently, the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, which has been in effect since the early 1950s. And they are well-established. But military commissions are a very different animal. Military Commissions are made up ad hoc. And the rules are made up ad hoc.   There was a long process of developing rules for these particular commissions that went through several rounds of legislation and litigation in the courts, and several times, Congress had to go back to the drawing board and start all over again. And ultimately, through those rules, a right of counsel was recognised. Other rights are enforceable in military courts, as in US civilian courts, like the right to a speedy trial, which are not  effective in these military commissions. And you have people who have been awaiting trial for over a decade, or over two decades, since some of the alleged behaviour occurred. So, to respond directly to your question, the prisoners did not get the rights guaranteed in military courts because they were not before a military court. They were before a military tribunal. And we have to recognise that those are two different things.   CJLPA : In the context of the war on terror and Guantanamo Bay, it is concerning to see how clear, coherent laws are disregarded in the name of national security. From your perspective, as a former judge, how can we ensure that the checks and balances system will not be interfered with again, as it was for the Guantanamo Bay prisoners?   RM : I can only say what was reportedly attributed to Jefferson: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. There have to be people who are prepared to take up unpopular causes for unpopular defendants. And that has been the case in this country. There are many good people I know that you have interviewed, many others who forcefully stood up for the rule of law. And that is not an easy choice and was not inevitable in this case.   When military tribunals were established first in Guantanamo, the National Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers took a policy position that they would not participate, they wouldn’t defend any of these defendants because it was an unfair, unjust, and indefensible system, and they didn’t want to be part of it. That position turned. Many dedicated lawyers, solo practitioners, academics, large firms, and small firms took up the cause of providing defence and making arguments, essentially that: ‘We’re better than this. The country is better than this. The country deserves better than this’. There will always be people who will do that.   There have been books written about them. There’s a wonderful book called The Guantanamo Lawyers that talks about the efforts that they have made here. It is also much dependent on the atmosphere at the time, a time when there are attacks on the United States, a time when there were 1000s of people killed. At any time of warfare, the courts, like any other institution, are in a defensive posture and do things out of concern for public safety and national defence. In retrospect, when much of that fear goes away, they have second thoughts about these things, so we have to be careful not to be entirely in a moment of fear and to recognise the historical context, which is very difficult.   CJLPA : That leads to my final question: what legacy would you like our viewers to draw from Guantanamo Bay?   RM : It is a question with many facets to it. From the standpoint of my involvement, one lesson is what I just said a moment ago: if we have standards, if we have ideals, if we have processes, if we have rules, then those rules ought not to be easily overcome by fear, by a desire for retribution. And we have to be true to our principles. The Constitution is a wonderful document that continues to evolve despite the views of so-called originalists. It has to change with context, and new situations always arise.   Guantanamo had some precedents in the establishment of military commissions. Only a few were on this scale, though there were in the Civil War and other times attempts to forego the civilian process completely. While during the Civil War, the courts were far more willing to accept the exigencies of the military condition, they later came to a more balanced understanding of what was permissible and impermissible.   But we have rules. We do not need to invent rules to apply the rules in cases like this. And we need people who don’t think they’re above the law and that what they do is beyond the law.   CJLPA : Thank you, Mr Ronald Meister, for taking the time to speak with us today, to tell us about your legal experiences with respect to Guantanamo Bay and for offering your valuable insights. It has been a great privilege for us and a very fascinating discussion. This interview was conducted by Nadia Jahnecke, Legal Editor and Founder of Human Rights Volume of CJLPA 3. In addition to her role at CJLPA, Nadia is currently working as a Trainee Lawyer and will qualify as a lawyer in England and Wales in March 2024.

In his opening remarks during the 74th ExCom of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in October 2023, the High Commissioner Filipo Grandi outlined that, despite borders and policies restrictions, 108.4 million people have had no choice but to flee their homes due to climate change, persecution, war, violence, human rights violations or instability.[1] This proves a reality, that people will always be on the move, but how they move depends on governments’ policies and procedures. When regular pathways are heavily restricted or closed, forcibly displaced people are prone to exploitation, abuse, and human rights violations by smugglers and traffickers. For example, according to the Missing Migrants Project, to date, 28,189 migrants have gone missing in the Med since 2014, with over 2,500 missing in 2023 only.[2] However, challenges that asylum seekers and refugees experience are not limited to the danger of death or human rights violations. Thousands of asylum seekers in the European Union wait for years to hear about their asylum claims decisions. In the UK for example, in August 2023, the asylum backlog reached record high, with 175,000 waiting for a decision on their asylum claim, living in limbo and uncertainty.[3] Other more depressing and worrying examples are related to forced returns to countries of origin when they are not yet safe, like Denmark’s returning Syrian refugees.[4]  All the above, accompanied with the rise of the right wing in Europe draws a gloomy picture for asylum seekers and refugees who have reached Europe, and those who will be forced to do so.[5] In addition to cruel policies, in many instances, the EU policies also fell short of responding to the emerging and forgotten conflicts and humanitarian crises. EU responses lacked an emergency or early warning system and were taken by shock during certain events like the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 and the following humanitarian crisis. Moreover, the lack of holistic and concentrated approaches to humanitarian disasters made responses short-sighted and exclusive. The above shows systemic failures in the EU to live up to the international obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees, especially because refugees have been excluded from spaces where decisions on their lives have taken place. In addition to the fact that governments should be accountable towards the affected communities, having refugees—regardless of their legal status—absent from designing policies, is a missed opportunity. Refugees have the solutions and the insights and their voice is crucial for a welcoming Europe. Earlier this year, in January 2023, over 100 refugee leaders from all over the EU gathered in a three-day summit to draw a picture of an inclusive and welcoming Europe. Participants crafted a roadmap that holds the key to solutions of the main challenges that refugees face. Listening to them, and transforming the scene in Europe based on their contributions would lead to more inclusive, relevant, and dynamic refugee responses and plans. I—Political Exclusion These challenges are underpinned by a fundamental issue, which is the lack of refugees' meaningful participation in creating policies and making decisions that affect their life in the host countries. The lack of avenues for participation and the tokenistic inclusion of refugees and instrumentalisation of refugee organisations and spaces have been counterproductive, and led to policies that cannot respond to the needs of displaced people, but in most cases put them in danger and limbo. History has shown that social movements most effectively bring change when they are led and organised by affected communities. When looking at the movements for women’s rights, civil rights, LGBTQI+ rights, against apartheid, or for independence, there is a clear pattern: the leaders are representatives from their communities. We, affected communities, are best-placed to inform policy needs and implementation.   Participants in the summit attributed the lack of refugee participation to the lack of access to political participation and the deliberate exclusion from decision making. In cases when refugees and/or migrants are invited to participate, their participation is tokenistic and does not confer changes in the power dynamic or lead to actual changes. The importance of the meaningful refugees participation—and of course the migrants participation—in the different contexts, is the recognition that they are capable active participants and not ‘vulnerable’ people as usually referred to.   The key solutions that participants in the summit came up with are the increase in political engagement of migrants and refugees, and particularly the inclusion of young refugees and migrants in decision-making. Refugee participation should be sustained, ethical and funded. Refugee-led organisations or migrant-led organisations should receive stable, flexible, and long-term core funding. Another main factor in making sure that refugees and migrants are participating effectively and informing policy is to build their capacity. Refugees and migrants participation should never be instrumentalised, and they should be involved on an equal footing as partners in the decision-making process.   The Meaningful Refugee Participation pledge is based on the core belief that solutions to refugee problems should come from refugees themselves, and that policies are only effective when inclusive and allow refugees a say on their issues.[6] Towards the Global Refugee Forum and beyond, meaningful refugee participation is the answer.   We have begun to see a shift already in increasing engagement of refugees, with more refugees on state delegations, on panels, and incorporated into dialogues and consultations on refugee policies. Nevertheless, these shifts have mostly taken place at the behest of certain champion states, NGOs, or other actors: we have yet to see a truly systemic change in the refugee response sector so that refugees like ourselves are routinely participating in all levels of strategising, funding, and implementing programs, policies, and other responses that influence our lives.   II—Financial and Economic Exclusion Asylum seekers and refugees, forced to flee their home countries due to violence, persecution, and instability, embark on a daunting journey towards safety and security. However, the path to socio-economic empowerment is fraught with insurmountable obstacles. To appreciate the gravity of this challenge, one must understand the sheer scale of the number of people forced to flee their homes globally as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, and human rights violations. According to the UNHCR as of December 2022, this number stood at 108.4 million and continues to grow. Refugees are not just statistics but individuals with dreams, skills, and untapped potential. Yet, their aspirations for financial stability and economic self-reliance often encounter systemic and multifaceted barriers. This is also a reality even for those who find themselves fleeing to Europe.   The findings from the European Coalition of Migrants and Refugees (EUCOMAR) 2023 report also attest to the intricate web of challenges that impede the financial and economic empowerment and settlement processes of asylum seekers and refugees in their European host societies. Key identified issues included bureaucratic complexities, stereotypes, and systemic barriers such as experiences of intersectional discrimination, prejudice, exclusion, lack of recognition of migrants existing educational achievements and expertise, language barriers, limited financial literacy and lack of information, weak or non-existent social networks, and lack of support for migrant and refugee-led organisations. Systemic Barriers The financial and economic exclusion of refugees and migrants is rooted in systemic oppression which manifests in various forms such as experiences of intersectional discrimination, prejudice and stigma embedded in policies, as well as in the labour market and financial service providers.   For instance, owing to discriminatory practices in the job market, many migrants and refugees are denied equal opportunities for employment and career progression. In many countries, despite their qualifications and skills, refugees are relegated to precarious, low-paid so-called ‘3 D—dirty, demeaning, and dangerous jobs’.[7] According to the European Summit report, this is particularly the case for racialised blacks and people of colour and indigenous migrants, women, undocumented, elderly, and uneducated migrants who might negatively self-select.[8] This type of employment perpetuates instability and precarity in their lives.   Similarly, these systemic barriers and intersectional discrimination have a domino effect and further impact various other aspects such as access to the labour market, financial services and entrepreneurial ventures as well as recognition of previous skills, educational achievements and expertise.   Human Capital and Skills Recognition Another critical aspect of refugees' and migrants' economic exclusion that came up in the findings was the lack of recognition of their skills and qualifications. It was highlighted that delays or non-validation of existing skills and expertise hinder access to suitable job opportunities and also limit access to high-paying jobs as well as career progression prospects.   Language Barriers Language is a fundamental tool for navigating a new host country. Yet many financial institutions use complex and inaccessible language and financial technologies. Thus, refugees' and migrants´ interaction with financial services is often hindered by these language barriers. This unfamiliarity with technical financial jargon is coupled with a general lack of trust in the financial sector due to experiences of discrimination. As a result, many refugees and migrants lack information and awareness about the financial systems and resources available to them. This lack of knowledge and understanding of the terms and features of financial products and services can lead to financial decision-making that does not align with their best interests. It may also lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the terms and features of financial products and services, adding to their exclusion.   Bureaucratic Complexities—Legal Frameworks Access to formal financial services, a fundamental component of financial inclusion, remains a significant obstacle for many refugees. The European Summit report pointed out that refugees and asylum seekers experienced many bureaucratic complexities when accessing banks and financial institutions.   Participants reported experiencing prejudice from financial service providers who questioned their means of income. An OECD report also indicated that banks often assumed refugees and asylum seekers were in the country temporarily hence they classified them as high-risk clients.[9] Thus, financial service providers were hesitant to open bank accounts, lend money to refugees and asylum seekers, or microfinance their entrepreneurial enterprises.[10] Access to basic financial services, such as opening a bank account, is often restricted for asylum seekers and those with undocumented status in some countries. Unlike labour migrants and foreign students who usually possess proper identification documents and residency rights, newly arrived refugees often lack valid identity documents.[11]   Additionally, stringent requirements such as fixed address, identification documentation, and proof of stable income often lead to the rejection of bank account applications, further contributing to financial exclusion. This limitation deprives asylum seekers of financial autonomy and stability, making it difficult to send or receive funds, save money, or access bank loans.[12]   Moreover, the continued tightening of financial regulations, aimed at combating money laundering and terrorist financing, inadvertently works against the economic integration of refugees.[13]   Even when host governments accept alternative forms of identification, international banks and financial institutions owing to a lack of knowledge and awareness of refugee issues and legal frameworks may still have reservations about accepting their applications.[14]   Weak Social Ties and Networks Studies have shown that due to stigma and prejudice, some refugees and migrants may find it difficult to create networks in the host country. Thus, they resolve to stick to their home country communities or ethnic enclaves which can also perpetuate a cycle of exclusion and poverty. Refugees with intersecting social positions such as women, disabled, LGBTQI+, undocumented, and unemployed, often find themselves without a support network to rely on and some might not have social security access as a safety net to fall back on. Consequently, they end up falling between the cracks, especially in times of crisis, as we witnessed during and post COVID-19 and in the current crises of rising inflation, conflicts, and wars. This absence of a robust safety net exacerbates the economic hardships faced by further marginalised refugees such as LGBTQI+ people, Black and People of Colour who may lack the support systems available to other segments of the refugee population.[15] Lack of Support for Migrant-led Organisations Refugee and migrant-led organisations often face numerous hurdles from institutional and political to funding and personal. Administrative, language, and knowledge barriers affect their access to funding. They also compete with established non-community-led NGOs for limited funds, highlighting the need for increased transparency and consideration of refugees' and migrants' specific expertise.   Refugees and migrants often lack the knowledge and understanding required to navigate complex financial systems in host countries. This absence of awareness extends to legal frameworks for establishing organisations, setting up bank accounts, and adhering to tax regulations making it even more challenging to secure funding. The complexity of these systems necessitates seeking legal guidance, which is often costly and inaccessible for underfunded organisations led by migrants and refugees. III—Asylum Reception and Integration Policies When it comes to asylum reception and integration policies, many issues arise. Apart from policy challenges including lack of policy responsiveness, emergency response, and clarity about procedures, structural ones hang on too. In the European summit, refugee leaders reported difficulty for refugees in accessing the information on asylum and procedures, and the unavailability of data, in addition to language barriers, bureaucracy, work and residency rules and travel expenses. Added to that, the imbalanced responsibility-sharing within the EU countries of asylum seekers and refugees. Low quotas of refugee allocation paused an extra challenge.   Participants suggested solutions for the EU governments to uphold the rights of displaced people seeking asylum in Europe and called for trust within the displaced communities. This trust would pave the way to combating discrimination and will preserve the safety, justice, and rights of the displaced people. Access to information and simplified translated information on procedures would save lives. Participants reiterated the need for safe and regular pathways like community sponsorship and family reunification.   Negative narratives around refugees are an added layer to the problem. Participants recommended developing a positive media narrative of sponsored refugees and good practices and developing a refugee-led advocacy and policy dialogue strategy. Despite the fact that the EU abides its own human rights convention,[16] and is signatory to the Geneva Convention, the journey to realise these ideals by asylum seekers and refugees is far from straightforward. The European summit’s report illuminated the intricate challenges encountered by asylum seekers and refugee communities throughout the EU's asylum procedures, detention centres, and integration endeavours. The participants stressed that it is imperative to adopt an intersectional perspective to unveil the numerous layers of human rights transgressions that diverse groups of asylum seekers and refugees experience. Furthermore, it called for the need to conduct a thorough examination of the flaws, constraints, and potential biases inherent in the EU's approach to tackling these issues. The participants discussed that the process of seeking asylum, which is the initial and most pivotal point in the path of asylum seekers, is bound by challenges in the EU and navigating its complexities can be perplexing. As per the right to seek asylum,[17] many asylum seekers often experienc e significant delays in the processing of their applications, resulting in a state of limbo characterised by prolonged uncertainty and heightened vulnerability. Participants noted that the intersectional perspective highlights how specific groups may face additional hurdles during the asylum process. LGBTQI+ asylum seekers, for instance, may fear disclosing their sexual orientation in countries with less progressive attitudes, which can further complicate their claims. Similarly, individuals with disabilities may struggle to access appropriate accommodations or support during the process. Variations in national laws and practices lead to disparities in how asylum seekers are treated. For example, some EU nations have violated the principle of non-refoulement by forcibly returning asylum seekers to perilous situations.[18] Moreover, the right to legal representation is inconsistently applied,[19] with some receiving comprehensive legal aid for a fair process while others have limited access to such crucial services. To create a more cohesive and all-encompassing asylum policy, it is essential to ensure secure and regular pathways for refugees. Participants also discussed the importance of safe access and regular pathways, highlighting the challenges faced at both policy and structural levels. They also referred to community sponsorship and family reunification. The participants of the summit highlighted the need for a more unified and equitable asylum policy in the EU. This includes addressing the challenges of policy responsiveness, transparency, and structural barriers, as well as ensuring secure and regular pathways for refugees. Detention centre conditions have been a subject of concern for the summit’s participants. The detention of asylum seekers—including children—can be prolonged, with overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, and subpar living conditions ,[20] which infringe their right to liberty.[21] This includes issues like overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, and substandard living conditions, all in clear violation of international human rights standards, notably Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which explicitly prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.[22] An intersectional perspective uncovers the varying experiences of detainees, particularly those belonging to vulnerable groups, as outlined in Article 24 of the EU Reception Conditions Directive.[23] During the summit, women participants stressed the need for protecting women and children, as they are especially at risk in detention settings, where they may become victims of gender-based violence and abuse. Disabled participants expressed their fears of encountering obstacles in accessing vital healthcare, intensifying the suffering associated with detention. The Dublin Regulation, responsible for distributing the processing of asylum applications, has led to an unequal distribution of refugees among EU member states. This approach places a disproportionate burden on countries like Greece and Italy, where overcrowded refugee camps often struggle to provide essential services. The participants also highlighted that vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors and survivors of gender-based violence, are at a heightened risk within these challenging conditions. Integration Challenges: A Rocky Road to Inclusion Despite its significance in the asylum process, refugee integration faces obstacles due to inadequate integration policies. These challenges manifest in high unemployment, limited education access, and housing difficulties. An intersectional approach recognises distinct barriers for specific groups, such as specialised mental health support for torture survivors and tailored educational programs for refugee children. Discrimination based on gender, race, or ethnicity further hinders integration. Human rights-based integration policies should ensure equal access to work (the right to work and enjoy fair and favourable conditions of work, enshrined in Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[24] is often violated in the case of refugees the summit participants said), and education (refugee children's right to education, as emphasised in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[25] is often thwarted by language barriers, discrimination, and lack of resources) and, similarly, equal access to housing (discrimination against refugees and migrants in housing and employment were highly mentioned and stressed during the summit by the participants—a clear violation of Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights further hampers integration and jeopardises the right to an adequate standard of living).[26] A critical analysis of the EU's approach to asylum seekers and refugees reveals several weaknesses and limitations. One of the key challenges mentioned in the summit lies in the lack of harmonisation and consistent implementation of asylum and migration policies across member states. This creates disparities in the treatment of asylum seekers, undermining the principle of equal protection under the law. ‘The EU's focus on border control and deterrence, rather than a primary emphasis on human rights protection, often leads to policies that prioritise security over individual rights’, said one of the participants. As a result, asylum seekers can face criminalisation, detention, and deportation, particularly when seeking entry. Comprehensive data collection and analysis that consider the intersecting identities and vulnerabilities of asylum seekers and refugees are often lacking. This oversight hampers the development of policies and interventions that address the specific needs of different groups. Conclusion In view of the above discussion, it is patently clear that the challenges surrounding the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees within the European Union are undeniably complex, deeply ingrained, and demand urgent attention. The complex and interconnected nature of these issues was vividly explored across three pivotal domains: policy and political participation, economic exclusion and marginalisation, and asylum policies and regular pathways. The voices of summit participants resounded with a unified call for comprehensive, systemic changes to uphold the EU's commitment to human rights and solidarity. With regard to the issue of policy and political participation, the clarion call is for a harmonised asylum policy. Participants emphasised the critical need for a unified approach, consistent implementation, and inclusive policies. They stressed the importance of recognising and responding to the unique vulnerabilities of refugees, underlining the imperative role of independent monitoring mechanisms to ensure that detention centres align with human rights standards. The plea for immediate action and systemic changes to address human rights violations echoes a key recommendation for a more compassionate and rights-centric asylum system. Turning to economic exclusion and marginalisation, participants illuminated the financial and economic obstacles faced by asylum seekers and refugees. The recommendations presented a roadmap toward economic empowerment and inclusion. This includes a push for inclusive banking systems, cross-sectoral collaborations, and the development of fit-for-purpose funding programs. Establishing a dedicated European banking institution, support for entrepreneurship, and specialised micro-credit systems were pinpointed as crucial elements. The overarching message is clear: economic empowerment is a linchpin in the holistic inclusion of refugees, requiring concerted efforts across sectors and robust support structures. In the sphere of asylum policies and regular pathways, summit participants underscored the necessity of a nuanced understanding of refugees and a challenge to negative stereotypes. The recommendations spanned from demanding accountability and transparency from member states to addressing economic challenges and fostering social inclusion. A comprehensive approach prioritising human rights in all policy decisions emerged as the central theme. The participants emphasised the importance of awareness, equal access to the labour market, training, language learning programs, special quota arrangements, and tax relief. The creation of support networks was highlighted as a pivotal step in enhancing the social capital, financial autonomy, and overall inclusion of refugees during their settlement process. The consequences of inaction are enormous given the overwhelming surge of challenges faced by refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants in Europe. The times demand a united front, where policies are not just documents but living embodiments of empathy and where economic empowerment is not just a goal but a means to human dignity. Immediate and collective efforts are needed to ensure the EU is a living embodiment of its values and guiding principles centering on human rights, solidarity, and compassion. This call to action is not only a moral imperative but a commitment to the very principles that undergird the EU. Maysa Ismael, Shaza Al Rihawi, and Miles Tanhira Maysa Is mael is a programme coordinator with the Global Refugee-led Network. She has worked on refugees’ issues since 2010. In Damascus, Syria, she worked with the United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Organization for Migration. In London, she worked in the field of freedom of expression, protecting civilians in conflict and women, peace and security. She is also a fellow with Beyond Borders' 1325 Women in Conflict fellowship, and a member of the steering group of the Refugee Journalism Project.   From co-founding influential refugee initiatives like Global Refugee-Led Network, the European Coalition of Migrants and Refugees, and Global Independent Refugee Women Leaders to shaping global dialogues on displacement, Shaza Al Rihawi is a passionate advocate for human rights and climate justice. A champion for refugees and displaced people, Shaza's voice resonates through prestigious platforms like Oxford University, COP28, and SDGs, calling for a more just and inclusive world.   Miles Rutendo Tanhira is a Zimbabwean-Swedish International Migration researcher and Founder of Queerstion Media. He is a peace and LGBTQI+ rights activist and a core team member of the European Coalition of Migrants and Refugees. His achievements include being one of the recipients of the European Parliament´s Intergroup on LGBTQI+ rights' Go Visible Award and being selected as one of the Human Rights Campaign´s Global Innovators. He has served on several voluntary boards, including the War Resisters International (WRI) from 2010- 2019 where he contributed to the Handbook for Non-Violent Campaigns 2nd edition. [1] UNHCR, ‘What is the difference between population statistics for forcibly displaced and the population that UNHCR protects and/or assists?’ ( UNHCR)  < https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/insights/explainers/forcibly-displaced-pocs.html#:~:text=The%20total%20number%20of%20forcibly%20displaced%20people%20(108.4%20million)%20encompasses,protection%20and%20internally%20displaced%20people > accessed 1 December 2023. [2] Missing Migrants Project, ‘Migration within the Mediterranean’ ( Missing Migrants Project)  < https://missingmigrants.iom.int/region/mediterranean > accessed 2 December 2023. [3] Callum May, James Gregory, and Mark Easton, ‘‘I struggle not knowing what the future holds’ - Asylum backlog reaches record high’ ( BBC News , 24 August 2023) <   https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66603767 > accessed 2 December 2023. [4] Martha Bernild, ‘Syrian Refugees in Denmark at Risk of Forced Return’ ( Human Rights Watch , 13 March 2023) < https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/13/syrian-refugees-denmark-risk-forced-return > accessed 2 December 2023. [5] Eline Schaart, Pieter Haeck, and Jakob Hanke Vela, ‘Far-right leader Geert Wilders wins Dutch election’ ( Politico , 22 November 2023) < https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-leader-geert-wilders-wins-dutch-election-exit-poll/ > accessed 1 December 2023. [6] Global Refugee-led Network, ‘Refugee Participation Pledge’ ( Global Refugee-led Network ) < https://www.globalrefugeenetwork.org/refugee-participation-pledge > accessed 1 December 2023. [7] Sara A Quandt et al, ‘Illnesses and injuries reported by Latino poultry workers in western North Carolina’ (2006) 49(5) American Journal of Industrial Medicine 343. [8] Jaffer L Najar and Anila Noor, ‘New Voices for an Inclusive Europe’ (Second European Summit of Refugees and Migrants, 2023). [9] OECD, ‘Responses to the refugee crisis: Financial education and the long-term integration of refugees and migrants’ (2016) < https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/financial-education/Financial-education-long-term-integration-refugees-migrants.pdf > accessed 8 November 2023. [10] ibid. [11] UNHCR, ‘Financial Inclusion’ ( UNHCR ) < https://www.unhcr.org/what-we-do/build-better-futures/livelihoods-and-economic-inclusion/financial-inclusion > accessed 8 November 2023. [12] Adèle Atkinson and Flore-Anne Messy, ‘Promoting Financial Inclusion through Financial Education: OECD/INFE Evidence, Policies and Practice’ (2013) < https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/dafaad/34-en.html > accessed 6 November 2023. [13] OECD, 34 OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions (2014) [14] UNHCR (n 11) [15] Miles Tanhira, ‘The Invisible Outsiders Within: An Intersectional Analysis of the Lived Experiences of Transgender African Migrants’ Integration Process in Sweden’ (Malmö University Publications 2022). [16]  European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953. [17]  Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 Article 14. [18] The Refugee Convention 1951 Article 33. [19] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2009, Article 16. [20] UNHCR, ‘UNHCR stresses urgent need for States to end unlawful detention of refugees and asylum-seekers, amidst COVID-19 pandemic' ( UNHCR , 24 July 2020) < https://www.unhcr.org/news/news-releases/unhcr-stresses-urgent-need-states-end-unlawful-detention-refugees-and-asylum > accessed 3 December 2023. [21] European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 Article 5. [22] ibid Article 3. [23] Directive 2013/33/Eu of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) 2013 Article 24. [24] Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 Article 15. [25] ibid Article 26. [26] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2009, Article 21.

I am honoured to be asked to write a short Foreword to this Issue of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art . I was an enthusiastic contributor to the first Issue.   If you read that Issue, I welcome you back and feel sure that you will be pleased with the varied content of this Issue too.   If you are a new reader, you may already know why you have taken up this Issue. If not, I would like to explain in brief why I think its subject matter is important, and why it might be important to you.   It seems to me that the Journal is likely to expand our horizons because it brings together three subjects which often sit in splendid isolation from each other, namely the Law, Politics, and Art. We tend to think about issues and debate them only within their separate silos. The combination can give us new insights for many reasons.   It can shed new light on the strengths and weaknesses of each of those subjects. Literature and art, in particular, can be used to expose deficiencies in the law which are open to criticism and debate. The combination of law and literature is also an effective way of explaining the law. In addition, the combination of all three topics can be used to advocate change in the law. An obvious example of these points is the work of Charles Dickens.   By like token, the law itself can be used to uncover the boundaries of our unwritten constitution. It is sometimes used by litigants for exactly that purpose. In turn, politics must make judgments on matters which are in general beyond legal expertise, but it is often beneficial for there to be a rich discussion outside politics as well.   Space does not permit me to take more than a sample of the contributions to this Issue. Some articles focus on one of the three subjects or leave the possibilities for cross-fertilisation between them unspoken. Others confront the combination of some or all the subjects directly. A striking example of this is Alejandro Posada Téllez’s thought-provoking contribution, ‘Is Peace Merely about the Attainment of Justice?’, on transitional justice. When conflict ends, war criminals may be made accountable by being prosecuted in domestic courts or (post the Second World War) in international courts and tribunals. Another solution is an official reconciliation process aimed at allowing the society to heal. Téllez points out that a reconciliation process may bring about justice for the individual and accountability, which is highly valuable in itself, but it will not necessarily produce a permanent political solution or lasting peace for the society. With the war in Ukraine, these questions are timely and apposite.   Another example is the topic of individual identity and autonomy, which arises in more than one contribution. If we truly believe in the importance of individual expression and personality, we should, I think, be very concerned to know about society’s failings in this regard. These failings may be because politics and the law, operating within their respective domains, have not kept up with social change and expectations. We need to know more about what makes us different from one another and how to adjust for those differences. Contributions in this Issue are helpful to that end.   This is a new journal which is probably unique in making its focus the combination of the three separate subjects of the Law, Politics and Art. I congratulate the Founder, the editors, and the contributors on the excellence of their respective contributions.   Happy reading!

As I read the insightful, entertaining, scholarly, and diverse articles in this issue of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art , I wonder to myself how these three elements have become so intertwined. Perhaps it is not surprising as art has always been an expression of power, human identity, perceived truth, and aspiration—qualities also shared by politics and law. This link is therefore certainly not new, but it is perhaps only in recent years that we have become so conscious of it.   25 years ago I answered an advertisement in The Times  for the position of in-house lawyer at Christie’s auction house. At that time, the concept of an art lawyer did not exist. There was, after all, no great need for lawyers in a discreet world based upon gentlemen’s agreements, which functioned very smoothly on the basis of reputations, influence, and relationships. It was, in short, a world apparently untouched by the concerns of law and politics.   Over the following 25 years of my career as an art lawyer, all of that was to change dramatically. The catalyst for that change was not, as one might imagine, the evolving complexity of business in general. Rather, it was a series of historical, political, and technological events which catapulted art and the sale of art into the centre of wider discussions around justice, power, and identity.   The first such event was a belated realisation, in the late 1990s, that the war from 1933 to 1945 in Europe had been an assault not only upon nations and upon people, but upon culture and identity. That attack, which was accompanied by so many personal tragedies, had remained largely unaddressed in the immediate aftermath of the war, allowing artworks stolen by the Nazi regime to continue to circulate in the art market. By the late 1990s, prompted by the opening of European archives, museums, collectors, and the art market were hit with a wave of restitution claims by descendants of the victims of spoliation. Law, ethics, and commercial reality were all brought into play in resolving the resulting disputes.   On the heels of the wartime restitution claims came a focus upon ancient cultural heritage looted from conflict zones. While the 1970 UNESCO Convention had prepared the ground, the signatory ‘art market’ countries were very slow to introduce the national legislation necessary to put into practice the aims of the convention. As a consequence, cultural heritage in conflict zones all over the world continued to be the target of looting. Events in the Middle East would, however, challenge that inaction. Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, unprotected archaeological sites and museums in Iraq were subjected to widespread looting. Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya suffered similar looting as law and order broke down amid their respective conflicts. Because this looting was widely reported in the West, the outcry was such that the art market was compelled to demonstrate that it had in place measures to ensure that looted antiquities from conflict zones were not finding their way into the salerooms. Politicians followed, albeit in the slipstream, introducing national legislation requiring the art market to carry out due diligence regarding the provenance of antiquities. None of these measures will stop the destruction and looting which are inherent to conflict, but they will perhaps help to prevent the fruits of that destruction appearing in the art market. Once again, progress was not achieved by any single measure but by the application of a combination of law, ethics, and commercial reality.   The third catalyst was the question of transparency and compliance. Discretion and confidentiality have always been central to the operation of the art world—and usually for good reason. Sellers understandably prefer not to advertise the circumstances which necessitate the sale of artworks, such as divorce and death. Buyers are also often keen not to advertise their wealth for reasons of personal security. Agents introduce a further layer of opacity, trying to preserve their commercial relationships by keeping confidential the identity of their principals. But in the modern art world, where huge sums are being transacted, a balance needs to be found between transparency and discretion. This need has been met by the passing of laws and regulations in many countries imposing onerous obligations on art market participants to carry out detailed due diligence on their clients and make disclosures to other art market participants. The art market is coming to terms with these critically important new obligations and, in doing so, having to acclimatise to a new environment of legal and compliance rigour—as well as a greater level of transparency, which is to be welcomed.   More recently, there has been a reappraisal of the display and ownership of art which was acquired—not in modern day conflict zones— but from colonies during colonial times or as a result of ancient conflicts. Many countries have, over time, been denuded of their artistic heritage and are understandably upset to see that heritage on display in the collections and museums of the world. This matters because, as the countries who have endured colonisation and invasion know all too well, art is closely linked to history and cultural identity. Politicians, collectors, and the art market are beginning to grapple with the question of ‘who owns history?’. As a result, we are also hopefully progressing towards reconciling the role of the global museum with efforts to recover heritage which was lost in the context of power imbalances.   Even now law, politics, and art are moving into a new phase with the growth of cryptocurrency, non-fungible tokens, digital art, and online sales. In doing so, lawyers, politicians, and artists will test new boundaries and challenge our perception of authenticity, originality, ownership, and value.   As a result of these events, art law is now a recognised discipline, rich not only in legal questions, but also in the consideration of wider political, artistic, and ethical questions. This journal is a wonderful reflection of that, and illustrates, for me, why this is such a fascinating area in which to work and about which to write. It is a privilege for me to have been asked to write this foreword and I hope that you will enjoy diving into this collection as much as I have. Martin Wilson Martin Wilson is Chief Executive Officer and former Chief General Counsel at Phillips auction house. He is a leading art lawyer and the author of Art Law and the Business of Art .

The role of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art  in current public discourse   I am often asked what I am trying to do  with this journal. The expectation is that in a world full of action, the role of any consequential organisation is to be doing something , to be making a point, to constantly rationalise, to assert control in some way over circumstances or concepts that are within no one’s control. This is in my view one of the great problems with the art world today, and also with the fields of law and politics.   In the art world, we feel a need to turn works of beauty, soul, and craftsmanship into objects whose meaning can be extracted, boiled down, and comprehensively explained. Art History courses today teach students to rationalise the artist’s intention and explain a colour scheme or a brushstroke by reference to a political event or other circumstance. We leave nothing to mystery any more. We do not allow ourselves to be haunted by the blurred, rufescent, august scene of JMW Turner’s Rain, Steam and Speed (below). Instead, we conclude that this is a painting 'about' the Industrial Revolution and its mechanical destruction of natural beauty. Perhaps it is that too, but I suggest that we lose Turner’s genius and the spiritual power of this object through attempts to demonstrate our own intellectual capacity for interpretation. We inappropriately confront mystery with logic. Rain, Steam and Speed (J.M.W. Turner 1844, oil on canvas 91 x 122 cm). © The National Gallery, London. In the law, the growing recourse to the judiciary for the resolution of essentially political questions is a different disease with the same cause. The law operates—or is meant to operate—in binaries, giving narrow answers to specific questions by reference to strict tests which adhere to clear and established principles. The law is essentially logical. Asking a judge to rule on whether it is in a child’s 'best interests' to continue living, or to interfere with an unpopular government policy, not only demonstrates a failure of the political system and creates an unhealthy constitutional reliance (as Lord Sumption argued so well in his contribution to our last issue), but also pits hard logic against questions of humanity and morality, which are inherently fluid.   Similarly, the increased politicisation of the arts, visible in everything from Fine Arts courses to Arts Council funding criteria, is a similarly dangerous phenomenon. The Arts Council now chiefly awards funding to projects with a political dimension: either the background of the artist or the nature of the work must appeal to a political objective, such as the overturning of colonial legacies. Many Fine Arts courses now require coursework to meet similar criteria. Besides the appropriateness of officials deciding on what is ‘worthy’ art (dare I say, think of the Nazis’ ‘Degenerate Art’), there is also a tragic opportunity cost. Think of the many struggling ‘non-political’ artists that are not supported; of the wealth of artwork born not out of politics but out of soul and personal meaning, that is not created, or ever seen. That is the true cost to our culture and it is the product of this inappropriate interaction.   The three domains of human pursuit that this journal covers—law, politics, and art—of course interact and overlap in fascinating ways. They add new dimensions and important perspectives to one another. However, the corresponding danger is that sometimes those interactions are inappropriate and in fact damaging to the individual integrity and nuances of those fields. Sometimes a work of art need not be more than an object of individual human meaning and power. Sometimes a legal ruling need not be more than a specific, anodyne conclusion on a point of law. Sometimes an artist-in-training or an arts awards body need not look to ticking political boxes but to valuing art that comes from a place of subjective struggle and truth.   Turning back to the original question of what this journal is about: this journal is aware of the opportunities and risks that come with placing these three fields in such close proximity. This journal is also aware of the risks of agendas, particularly political agendas. As such, as an institution the role of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art is to be nothing but a neutral vessel for the free expression of ideas and thoughts: a place of stillness and reflection at a time of constant motion and little self-awareness. Our editorial processes are rigorous and our activities around the world teeming with ambition. But this journal has no ambition or agenda other than to allow others to express themselves truly freely, constrained only by the limitless bounds of the English language.   I set up this journal because I was exasperated with censorship, at home and abroad. Censorship, however labelled, however well-intentioned, however (seemingly) morally-driven, is still a muzzle on free expression and ultimately free thinking, and is the necessary ingredient for the decline of any culture. We are defined by the quality of our thoughts and the quality of our thoughts is often determined by our ability to express them. This journal will never be bullied into taking a view. Nor will it ever tell anyone else to take or not to take a view. An antidote to today’s problems is not to stymie debate but to improve the quality of public discourse and educate everyone, God forbid! , to be able to think for themselves. I want this publication to be the freest and purest forum in the world for the exposure of new,   brilliant, daring thought.   In many ways the West is in decline. But if there is anything special left that we can offer the world, let it at least be that feeling of freedom and autonomy that leads to the greatest moments of genius and creativity; that rush of innovation and ideas that comes with feeling like there is nothing in your way, no moral-arbitering-Sword of Damocles hanging over you, waiting for you to make a mistake. That is why our editorial guidelines welcome everything from scientific research to black-letter law to creative writing. That is why the contributors to this journal include everyone from Sixth Formers to Supreme Court Judges, painters to politicians, archaeologists to advocates. That is why this journal has even developed its own technology to safely process sensitive information from political dissidents around the world.   Look once again at Turner’s Rain, Steam and Speed . A mechanised train uncompromisingly steams forward against a mystical, classical background where a rowboat moves slowly by human effort across a quiet body of water. Metallic logical and (perhaps moral) self-assuredness pierce a warm and hazy stillness that used to leave room for the unknown and for a slower, more contemplative pace. This was an atmosphere where truth, subtle thinking, and honest feeling did not have to battle against so much noise to be heard. This new journal is one of the last, determined remnants of that old, if romanticised, atmosphere. We will not stifle certain ways of thinking because we think better. We will observe, ponder, and respect what we see. We will publish all  reasoned thinking because we believe that if we have moral courage and genuine openness to difference, then we can nurture and stimulate an improved quality of public discourse.   This second issue of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art  is another important step in that direction, and dare I say, another work of cultural significance. A very special team   The staff of this journal are formidable. This journal started as an idea; then a one-man-band; then a team of six core editors who met in a dusty corner of a Cambridge restaurant; then a group of 36 editors and sub-editors across our three thematic departments; and now an international organisation of editors, designers, business developers, events managers, global ambassadors, and coordinators, only the core of whom can be acknowledged here and overleaf. This group of people, drawn not only from the University of Cambridge but from around the world, share an unreasonable ambition to turn an idea into a major international publication known for its academic rigour, prestige of contributors, and strength of character.   It is humbling to have worked with this remarkable group of people. Every single member of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art  has worked hard, shown great skill, and above all has demonstrated enormous creativity and vision in bringing this journal forward.   Some special thanks are due.   Uma-Johanna Shah has stood in the gap during this journal’s most testing periods. As Design Editor, Uma is responsible for the beauty, quality, and structure of this journal.   Stella Maria Sendas Mendes has had the unenviable but vital task of coordinating all of the journal’s operations. As Managing Editor, Stella has energised and organised this journal, showing great leadership, humour, and panache in the process.   Jack Graveney is the intellectual force behind this journal. As Content Editor, Jack has led the Editors—a team that has ensured this journal has an almost unmatched rigour and precision in its editorial processes and the quality of publication we put out.   As her homeland came under attack by Russian forces and refugees fled to her beautiful home in leafy St Albans, Constance Uzywshyn did not flinch. In her capacity as Executive Editor, Constance continued to bring in the breadth and calibre of contributions that allows this journal to call itself world-class. She has also played a valued role in leading this journal’s many talented staff.   William Fulp is the business brain behind this journal. A former New York stockbroker with a special talent for rearing funds and raising horses (or is it the other way around?), William has not only ensured the financial stability of the journal but has also provided and is implementing a vision for long-term growth and international distribution that, I hope, will make this journal a feasible global publication.   I can state with confidence that you would not be holding this journal in your hand had it not been for the extraordinary efforts, through thick and thin, of the five individuals named above. As much as I have been responsible for the birth of this journal, so too have I at times been its greatest liability. The personal friendship, understanding, and integrity of those mentioned above have ensured the life and growth of this journal in spite of that.   I must also warmly thank Michael Sandle RA for his sincerity, warmth, and humour. Sandle is one of the most important artists of our time. It is this journal’s honour to have his work on our front cover.   Additional thanks are due to those who, in an advisory capacity, have influenced the direction of this journal.   Martin Wilson has brought unique insights from industry and art law that will guide the direction for years to come. Sergiu Sall Simmel has provided applied and highly useful advice for the organisational effectiveness of this journal, as well as its future expansion to North America. Eduarda Gasparini’s superb creative ability, inquisitiveness, and moral support have played an important role in bringing this journal to its final stage. Peter Dixon is one of the most remarkable men I will ever meet and this journal is lucky to have his generosity and creative input. Nathalie Edwardes-Ker’s incredible intellect, strength, and warmth have given me the courage and inspiration to push through with this journal during its toughest times, and I will always be grateful to her for this: I owe her far more than can could ever be expressed here.   Lord Sumption, Lady Arden, Professor John Finnis, and Professor Matthew Kramer—some of the greatest legal minds of our time—have played an important role in ensuring this journal retains its moral courage to uphold freedom of reasoned expression, now and into the future. Alexander (Sami) Kardos-Nyheim Alexander (Sami) Kardos-Nyheim is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of CJLPA .