Why Ireland has become home to LGBTQ+ asylum seekers

Why Ireland has become home to LGBTQ+ asylum seekers

Why Ireland has become home to LGBTQ+ asylum seekers

A photo of three hands raised in fists on. The background is a rainbow flag.

Image: Prathan Chorruangsak

A land of picturesque beauty and a country of an illustrious history, the Republic of Ireland has made significant headway in the recognition and acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights over the last decade. This development has helped Ireland become a haven for LGBTQ+ asylum seekers. Ireland’s journey from a socially conservative nation to an emerging home for LGBTQ+ asylum seekers is a testament to the power of societal transformation. From the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1993 to becoming the first nation to enact a national law allowing same-sex marriages in May 2015, Ireland heralds the initialisation of change. 

 

Partly ascribable to the firmly held opposing influence of the Catholic Church, the paradigm shift of Irish society from conservative-leaning to rainbow-coloured liberal didn’t happen in a day. According to the ILGA map of sexual orientation from 2016, over seventy countries criminalised same-sex sexual activities, and thirteen countries imposed death penalties. These numbers have reduced to fifty-seven and eleven, respectively in 2019. In such a world, for those who fled their homes, Ireland has been one destination.

 

“Fleeing Homophobia, Asylum Claims Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Europe,” published in 2011, estimates that 10,000 or more people in Europe file asylum claims each year due to their sexual orientation. Historically, only Belgium and Norway have collected statistics on the number of people applying for asylum in Europe based on their sexual orientation. Despite having no accuracy on the number of LGBTQ individuals requesting refuge in Ireland, anecdotal data suggests that a significant fraction of the 2,443 individuals who requested asylum here between the years 2006 and 2015 identify as LGBTQ+.

 

“Even though I was not legally prosecuted for being a homosexual in my home country, but I was always socially charged at every stage of my life for being who I am. My family and friends made me feel that my sexuality is sinful,” said James (pseudonym used) in a conversation.

“I have been living happily in Ireland with my husband since 2017 and it has never occurred in the past six years that I had to hide myself in the binary crowd. We’re planning on adopting a baby, too.”

The expression of relief on James’s face for being able to find a home for himself and his husband was the sign of a gift from Irish society to not just James but also to many others like him. However, the process of creating a peaceful space for the LQBTQ+ immigrants in Ireland has not been free of challenge. Research published in 2018 by National LGBT Federation (NXF), “Far from Home: Life as an LGBT Migrant in Ireland,” states that 54% of the survey respondents felt exclusion and 40% experienced homophobic abuse, a reminder that a world of acceptance is still a long way away.

 

However, many groups are working to make a more accepting society a reality. LGBT Ireland is a national organisation which has been enormously contributing towards the betterment of the LGBTQ+ community in Ireland with a significant impact on the lives of LGBTQ+ immigrants, travellers, refugees and asylum seekers. ‘Is Rainbow Muid – We Are Rainbow’ is an in-person peer and social group supported by LGBT Ireland. The Irish Refugee Council identifies challenges faced by the LGBTQ+ community in the process of seeking international protection, both during the decision-making process and reception of the facilities. Some of these challenges include:

  • Lack of early recognition of the unique needs of LGBT applicants, as well as delayed access to specialised medical guidance, counselling services, social assistance, and legal counsel attentive to their claims;

  • Evaluation of the legitimacy of cases for asylum based on sexual orientation or gender identity;

  • Confinement to Direct Provision accommodation with scant access to essential services and social supports;

  • Experiences with bullying and sexual harassment directed towards LGBT people living in ‘Direct Provision accommodation’.

To overcome these challenges, the Irish Refugee Council advocates for the well-being of LGBTQ+ people seeking asylum through efforts such as their ‘Identity Peer Support Group’.

 

The efforts of great individuals of the Irish nation and organisations like the Irish Refugee Council, LGBT Ireland, Rainbow Railroad Ireland, Outhouse, Irish Council for Civil Liberties and many more have brought tremendous positive changes in making Ireland a home for the LGBTQ+ immigrants and asylum seekers. Like someone anonymously said, “an open mind, a good heart and an empathetic soul, is all it takes.”

A banner made up of many black and white images collaged together. Images include protest banners, animals, buildings, and statues.

New From STAND News

Want to write for us?

Fill out the form below to join the STAND News team.

The riot is over, but there may be more to come

The riot is over, but there may be more to come

The riot is over, but there may be more to come

A collage of three photos from the Dublin riots. One is a bus burning, one is a fire in the background behind a lamp-post, and one is of riot police.

Images: Sam Boal, Clodagh Kilcoyne, Robbie Kane

The riots have passed, but there is still a lingering worry of what is to come, especially for non-Irish natives living in the country. What is now almost as, if not more important, is how people and groups reacted to it and how much support the anti-immigration groups have as of now.

It is blatantly obvious how this outbreak of violence was caused due to anti-immigration sentiment, with a large proportion of this being thinly-veiled racism. The disturbing part is how rampant it has become in a country with 20% of its population being from another country.

The government and all major parties have unsurprisingly condemned this act, but this will do nothing to stifle anti-immigrant sentiment both in Ireland and online. 

Anti-immigration groups including The National Party and Irish Freedom Party, who are now vying for political power in the next council elections, have pushed the angle that they are ‘wrongfully’ labelled as far-right despite this ideology including anti-immigration policy as one of its main beliefs. They have backing from Irish citizens, but it is hard to tell if this is enough to make a difference in the elections or just a tiny minority bolstered by far-right nationalists from other countries.

Something that is very difficult to figure out is the scale of support these parties and their ideas have, since the surge in right-wing action was very recent and we lack any elections to go off. For many this sentiment has been known but rarely taken seriously because of how new and seemingly small it is. 

The issue comes with not knowing how large this far-right sentiment is in Ireland due to the nature of social media and media bubbles.

Media bubbles are social media environments where you are only shown posts of what you like and those that represent your own beliefs. This can be as simple as being shown fishing to seeing posts mainly supporting Fine Gael if you support them. Those believing in anti-immigration are no different in this so it is hard to see the full extent of its support online for both those who support and are against it.

It is borderline pointless for news sites to constantly put a highlight on how the far-right are wrong and they should change their ways. Any news agency with differing views is either called ‘fake news’ or ‘mainstream media’ that only pushes a government agenda that will lead to the collapse of Irish culture. There is also no point in condemning their actions when most have already heard more than enough of that from much more qualified reporters. 

What is important to do right now is watch what happens next and wait for hard facts before jumping to conclusions, just like those who rioted in Dublin. 

The plethora of false information discussed about that night while it was occurring meant even I struggled to figure out the truth from fact when it was just beginning. Facebook was filled with images of the army apparently rolling through Dublin to deal with the riots and posts mourning the death of the young girl who was stabbed only for her to be reported as still in critical condition the next day, which were later found to be fake. There are also those who purposefully tell only half the story to better preach their ideals, such as mentioning everyone who went in to save the children in the knife attack but excluding any non-Irish citizens. 

Misinformation online is, on many occasions, more rampant than the actual truth which a lot of the time is much more simple and boring. Everyone has already heard about this before, but many still fall for it over and over again. Even millennials and Gen-Z fall for this, despite growing up with it and being fully aware of the dangerous potential of people distorting truth to fulfil their own agenda. It is so easy to look something up and take five minutes to verify if a piece of information is true or not, or even to simply wait and see if news sites pick it up as a story. However, many do not take those five minutes, resulting in more and more people having beliefs and ideals that are not based on facts, but on fiction.

A banner made up of many black and white images collaged together. Images include protest banners, animals, buildings, and statues.

New From STAND News

Want to write for us?

Fill out the form below to join the STAND News team.

The unregulated nature of student digs

The unregulated nature of student digs

The unregulated nature of student digs

A photo of an empty bedroom, viewed from behind the door frame. There are books piled on the floor, a laptop, and a pillow.

Image: SolStock, Getty Images

Digs are becoming an increasingly common form of housing for people in Dublin, with homeowners encouraged to rent out their spare rooms and students becoming more desperate for shelter of any kind. However, this is a completely unregulated and unsupervised form of accommodation, because of this renters have no protections under legislation. 

 

As digs become more popular due to extortionate Dublin rents, the cracks in the system are beginning to show. Students coming to Dublin are expecting to live their college dream of wild parties every night and new friends and romances every week. Instead, they’re faced with living with a middle aged couple who expect 8:30pm to be quiet time and set ‘curfews’ for this grown adult they’re renting to. 

 

On top of this, there’s a distinct lack of security felt by those in this type of accommodation, being constantly on edge that those they’re living with may get notions of renovations and kick them out accordingly. There’s no recourse for those that experience this, due to the unregulated nature of this scheme. If homeowners suddenly decide to build that home gym they’ve dreamed of, or that the renter using the kitchen at 8:45pm is simply too much for them to handle, they can essentially evict renters without a second thought. 

 

On top of all this, there is a group that is fully locked out of even accessing this accommodation – international students. The nature of digs being a five day a week arrangement effectively shoves out those who come to Dublin to study or work from abroad. Therefore they are faced with either the option of leaving or renting a shared room with a tiny toilet for about €800 a month.

 

The concept of people renting out rooms in their houses was introduced to take pressure off the housing market and provide another form of accommodation. The Rent-a-Room Relief scheme allows homeowners to make up to €14,000 a year tax free to encourage this.

A photo of a wooden table with a hard-back book that says "Landlord-Tenant Law" on the cover. There is a judge's gavel and a key with a house-shaped key ring on it.

Image: Designer491, Getty Images.

However, despite being an increasingly popular form of living for single renters in Dublin it is specifically excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) which provides obligations and protections for both tenants and landlords. Because of this, those paying rent for this type of accommodation aren’t tenants, but licensees.

According to the leading writer on this, barrister Patricia Sheehy Skeffington, the most important difference between the two is the lack of exclusive occupation of the premises for licensees. For all those lucky enough to not study Property Law, this means that licensees are only given permission to enter and use the premises, whereas tenants have an actual interest in the property and therefore have a right to exclusive occupation, free from the landlord. 

 

The lack of security in digs becomes all the more apparent when renters are only classified as those who have permission to use the premises rather than a contractual right. According to the UCDSU Report on digs, 71% of students surveyed didn’t know the legal difference between these terms, showing the information gap present even to those who are living in digs. 

 

Because people living in digs are excluded from the RTA, renters have no access to the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) who hear disputes between landlords and tenants for issues like wrongful eviction. Those renting the room out also have none of the legal obligations of a landlord, such as allowing exclusive occupation of a premises or giving fair and proper notice of eviction. As a result, those in digs are clearly much less secure than tenants in their accommodation. 

 

Stories collected by the UCDSU when surveying students in digs illustrates this perfectly. These range from the funny anecdotes of fussy homeowners to downright disturbing treatment of students in these homes. One student reported there was specific shower and kitchen use time, along with a ‘pseudo curfew,’ in the evening. This was a 20 year old man living with two strangers who effectively treated him as the least favourite child, he reported feeling more like a burden than a rent payer. Many share the feeling of being infantilised by these homeowners, not like the grown college students or young professionals they are. It’s hard not to feel that you’re twelve years old again when curfews become a factor in your life of wild parties and playdates.

 

As previously mentioned, digs is commonly a five day a week arrangement. However, due to the lack of regulation in this area, homeowners are fully entitled to charge for full weeks at market rates when renters simply aren’t welcome for the full week, and they are definitely not living in a typical shared living arrangement as seen in the housing market. Digs were specifically encouraged because they were separate to the market and saved students from the horrors of the market. However, now it is typical for homeowners to charge €800 per month, when a month really means three weeks. At those prices there really isn’t any incentive for students to go to digs, where they would be sharing with faux mammies and daddies for five days a week when they could get sole occupation of a room in shared living with people who won’t time their showers (probably). Digs is becoming the villain it was designed to defeat. It’s not offering students a safety net from inaccessible housing, it’s becoming inaccessible for those who need to stay weekends and who can’t afford such prices for only three weeks of living.

 

The international students and young professionals are the obvious group for whom digs is simply an impossible option. It’s not exactly feasible to fly home for the weekend when your home might be on a different continent. In third-level education institutes in Ireland, international students are thrown into the lottery for on campus accommodation, just like the rest of us. If they don’t get a spot it’s from the frying pan into the fire, and they are faced with navigating a foreign and expensive housing system. Being locked out of digs denies international students a second chance for accommodation that Irish students are granted, regardless of how questionable that chance is.

 

Without regulation, homeowners are fully entitled to their decision to exclude a large majority of domestic and international students from their room offer. It’s clear that in order to actually provide a viable alternative to the private rental sector, digs need to have some sort of legislative backing to weed out those who simply want a tax free side income from those who will actually provide fair and viable housing.

 

In January 2023, Minister for Housing Darragh O’ Brien ruled out regulations being introduced for digs, claiming it would frighten homeowners away from considering it and therefore reduce the supply. How much clearer could he have shown that this scheme is brilliant for a quick buck without any real responsibility? The stance taken by the government regarding digs is that some accommodation is better than none. This is not good enough. 

 

If someone was outside my door timing my showers and giving me a curfew as a grown adult, I would gladly brave the horrors of the private rental sector. Regulations don’t necessarily mean a plethora of obligations. The bare minimum would be a requirement for fair rents, fair evictions, some weekend availability and maybe even something akin to the RTB to hear complaints. The Rent a Room Relief is definitely beneficiary as it encourages homeowners to open their homes, and I commend those who do. But those who do it and are then shocked at the consequences of a student’s existence, such as eating, showering and not magically disappearing when needed are the reasons why digs aren’t a secure and viable option for students. The ‘luck of the draw’ theme of digs isn’t good enough, students are suffering from it, both domestic and international. 

 

As students we famously don’t require much; a loaf of bread and a box of tea bags will sustain us for weeks on end. However, the bare minimum when it comes to where we live is no longer suitable. In order to support our studies, our mental health, and dare I say our college experience, we need to live where we feel secure, comfortable and confident in our ability to pay the rent. I believe this can be described as one step above the bare minimum. 

A banner made up of many black and white images collaged together. Images include protest banners, animals, buildings, and statues.

New From STAND News

Want to write for us?

Fill out the form below to join the STAND News team.

Has activism changed the standard of truth in journalism?

Has activism changed the standard of truth in journalism?

Has activism changed the standard of truth in journalism?

A photo of a young female protester shouting with her hand raised in a fist. She is being interviewed by a man with a microphone, and a news camera is facing her. There are other protesters with signs behind her.

Image: Vesnaandjic, Getty Images Signature

The standard of truth in journalism has traditionally been “objectivity.” Objectivity can be defined in several manners – “freedom of bias” is one definition by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary that encompasses the heart of the word. To be objective is to be direct, fair, and impartial. 

 

Print journalism, primarily news and other fact-based reporting, has generally relied on the standard of objectivity to garner its audience’s trust and deliver effective reporting. Though it was a gradual development, many scholars point to the 20th century as the inception of objectivity as the standard of truth in journalism. Rising global political tensions and a shift in the world view of journalism as a profession resulted in a new “wave” of journalism

 

Although many opposed objectivity as the new default standard, newsrooms, primarily in the Western World, viewed neutrality as a mechanism to reach wider audiences and prevent the profession’s failure amid newspaper closures. Those in opposition of objectivity argued that “it privileged the perspectives of the powerful and caused journalists to withhold their knowledge from reader.” 

 

Along with objectivity unfolded a set of norms and ethics in the 20th century that have stipulated the breadth of journalistic coverage for generations. These norms and ethics –  developed in an era where newspapers were one of the only sources of information –  have since dictated what constitutes “good” journalism. They largely mirror the guiding principle of impartiality, both inside and outside the newsroom, so as to not influence readers. But these professional codes originated in a world far different from today – a world where technology and human rights were just being born. 

 

In an age ruled by digital media, the expectations of society are bound to change. Journalists today remain a primary source of information for most, but social media has fundamentally altered the way people consume news

 

Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and X (formally known as Twitter) are responsible for the world’s unprecedented interconnectedness. Therefore, they also facilitate the spread of information, whether accurate or not. 

 

In recent years, there has been an upward trend of digital activism. Following American investigative journalist Ronan Farrow’s exposure of the deep-rooted culture of sexual violence in Hollywood in 2017, the #MeToo movement fundamentally altered how internet users interact with digital media. 

 

Shortly after in 2020, George Floyd’s murder at the hands of police prompted a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement. Floyd’s death sparked the inception of a new era in social media where activism is currency for respect. 

 

Activism has long been a facet of society, holding the institutions of power accountable and striving to promote positive progress. The intersection of journalists and activism has generally been frowned upon since the birth of objectivity as the ethical code. In this new era, expectations have changed. And, perhaps simultaneously, journalists are simply more willing to embrace overlap. 

 

Following the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, matters of diversity, discrimination, and rights protection have increasingly been challenged. Discussions on social media have immense influence, and arguably dictate the political trajectory of a nation. These online discussions and movements further act as a metric of accountability for those perceived as having committed wrongdoing or even for their silence on a matter of global significance. 

A photo of a phone set up on a tripod on a purple background. It's next to a camera on a tripod.

Image: Media Whale Stock

The vast changes prompted by activism, social media, and the diversification of newsrooms have altered how journalists view objectivity and truth. 

An article by The Washington Post reports that more and more those in the journalism industry argue that “the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality.” The difficulty arises in determining where the line is drawn without undermining journalistic integrity. What differentiates activism from mere opinion when reporting? 

 

The problem in tackling this dilemma lies in balancing the realities of modern society on the one hand and the duty of journalists to democratic society on the other.

 

Supporters of activism in journalism deem that “pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading ‘both-sidesism’ in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects.” Both-sidesism refers to the media practise of giving credit to the other side of an action or idea for the sake of fairness when that side’s argument is unmerited. In other words, reporting on matters of human rights lends itself to the need to demonstrate support for the ill-treated in one’s work rather than giving both sides of the conflict an equal platform to be heard. 

 

Joseph Kahn, executive editor of the New York Times, stated, “When the evidence is there, we should be clear and direct with our audience that we don’t think there are multiple sides to this question.” To make unequal things appear equal for the sake of objectivity would be a failure to the readers and democracy. 

 

Opposers of this growing trend argue that independent journalism calls for plainly stating facts regardless of the outcome. It is not the role of the journalist to interject their personal bias and influence the reader. Journalism exists for the reader to access information and develop their own opinions based on objective truth. 

 

Impartiality is crucial to the integrity of journalism. However, the concept of objectivity is blurred by the inundation of facts and “truth” on social media. Rapid advances in technology have meant that the framework of journalism has had to mould itself to the demands of its digital-age audience, playing catch-up with the technology.

 

It is unrealistic to expect the tenets of journalism to remain stagnant in an ever-changing world – it is natural for things to change over time. The beliefs, values, and needs of society are far different from when the strict standard of objectivity was adopted. Therefore, an evolution of journalism is warranted. 

 

Whether or not such an evolution will allow for activism as common practice in news reporting is unclear. 

 

What is clear is the impact that activism has already had in raising questions about the efficacy and ethics of the current standard of truth in journalism. The mere fact that a growing number of professionals in the industry are making room for activism in their work points to an interesting future. A new standard of truth has already begun to permeate journalism.

A banner made up of many black and white images collaged together. Images include protest banners, animals, buildings, and statues.

New From STAND News

Want to write for us?

Fill out the form below to join the STAND News team.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what we can do about it

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what we can do about it

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what we can do about it

A photo of a young boy holding hands with an older man from behind. The boy has a Palestinian flag in his hand and is raising it up high. The man has a bag thrown over his shoulder. There are cars and large groups of people in the background.

Image: Hosnysalah, Pixabay

Origins

 

Like many conflicts that have taken place in the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian war has its roots in a religious disagreement. Firstly, it is essential to acknowledge that there are two big blocks, on the one hand, the Jews (Israel), and on the other hand, the Sunni Muslims (Palestine). Both territories are currently disputing its governance and claiming their historic right to live in what is now considered by some Western powers as Israel.

 

But, how did it start? The conflict has its origins in times before Christ. At that time, Israelites asserted their lineage as descendants of the ancient Hebrews, while Palestinians contended that they were descendants of the Philistines, who had inhabited the region for over three millennia. However, political experts highlight the end of the 19th Century as a major turning point in the history of the dispute. During the 19th Century, Israel was still part of the Ottoman Empire, at the same time, the political movement called Zionism emerged.

 

Vox defines Zionism as the national ideology of Israel. It asserts that Judaism is both a religion and a nationality, and that Jews have a right to their own state in Israel their ancestral homeland. It is the reason for the Jewish people’s return to Israel and is also a major concern for Arabs and Palestinians concerning the Israeli state.

 

As Zionism developed, the Jews began to occupy the Palestinian territory, and between 1882 and 1903, the “First Aliyah” arose, which was a notable Jewish immigration wave to the Palestinian territory. Eventually, and caused mainly by the antisemitism movement that intensified in both the First and Second World Wars, a bigger immigration wave occurred towards the Ottoman-ruled Palestine. Subsequently, the Jews and Muslims were engaged in several wars, like the Hebron massacre (1929), which caused the death of 67 Jews. Israeli nationalist groups arose, and terrorist attacks detonated from both of the parties involved.

 

In 1949, Israel was recognized as a country, and the United Nations divided the territory, giving Palestinians and Jews a similar-sized proportion of land. The Palestinians were dissatisfied with the division proposed by the UN and engaged in another war against Israel (also known as the First Arab–Israeli War), but this time accompanied by the Arab League (composed of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, etc.). The turnout was unexpected, as Israel won and enlarged its territory, expelling the Muslims.

 

After that war, Israel continued expanding its land and tried to reduce the presence of the Palestinians through movement restrictions, cutting water access, repressions, and marginalisation. As a consequence, in 1987, the well-known political organisation Hamas rose, while another Palestinian organisation, called the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) tried more peacefully and democratically to fight for Palestinian rights.

An old-looking map of the coastline to the east of the Mediterranean Sea. "Israel" is on the map but not Palestine. In the top right corner are two Palestinian stamps.

Image: NTMW and Maher, Getty Images Signature.

Indeed, during the period of 1993-2000, the PLO signed along with Israel the renowned Oslo Accords, which are a set of agreements that established a peace process based on co-existence between the parties, through a mutually negotiated two-state solution. However, they eventually fell apart as there was an environment of mutual distrust, violence, attacks, Israeli illegal settlements, fundamental disagreements, etc.

What is happening now?

Why is Hamas attacking now? A pertinent question with widespread media coverage. Let’s examine the situation closely to determine the underlying factors. Currently, Palestine is divided into two territories: the Gaza Strip (controlled by the group Hamas), and the West Bank (controlled mainly by Israeli occupation and the Palestinian Authority). 

 

The dispute in Gaza has broken out due to the trial of normalisation of the international relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, a Muslim country and supposed ally of Palestine, has been in discussions with Israel to establish a peace agreement between the two nations. This development could lead to other Muslim countries, such as Egypt, enhancing their diplomatic ties with Israel as well. Certainly, this deal is not convenient for Palestine. In response, Hamas has launched an offensive against Israel, resulting in the current conflict that is visible across the media. Consequently, Israel’s army prepares to counterattack by invading the Strip of Gaza, and there are concerns about militias in Lebanon and Syria supporting Hamas in the ongoing fighting.

 

The consequences of the conflict

 

War demands sacrifice of the people. It gives only suffering in return.” — Frederic C. Howe

 

On October 25, the Israeli military declared that it had hit over 7,000 targets within Gaza, making the current military assault one of the most severe in recent memory on a worldwide scale. As the Israel-Hamas war continues, the deepening crisis is putting additional pressure on an already overburdened global humanitarian system. 

 

Apart from demographic losses from both sides, the international sphere is also affected, more specifically from an economic point of view. Due to its role as a crucial supplier of energy and a key shipping passageway, conflict in the Middle East can have a significant impact on the global community. In fact, the international economy is vulnerable, as we are still recovering from the economic shock caused by the ongoing Ukrainian-Russian war. Overall, the potential effects of the war will depend on its future development.

 

What can we do?

 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex issue that has plagued the region for almost a century. The solution to this long standing problem requires the active involvement of governments, international organisations, and various political actors. As students, we too can play a role in promoting understanding and exploring potential solutions. We have the power to raise awareness, initiate constructive dialogue, and work towards establishing a peaceful coexistence between the two nations.

How can we address the conflict?

  • Firstly, it is important to educate ourselves, rather than choosing a side without any context, it is relevant to have a certain background about the dispute, its origins, consequences, and future prospects. It is the only way in which we can develop a critical and analytical mindset and elaborate coherent opinions.

  • Donate to Global Relief Agencies to help the victims of the war. Some examples are Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, The International Committee of the Red Cross, Save the Children, and the International Rescue Committee.

  • Discuss and debate the issue in a mutually respectful environment. In that way, students can bring the conflict to the public attention, as well as gain a deeper understanding.

  • Make sure that we are getting information from the right sources: media could be biased towards one of the sides, and may not reflect the reality of the war.

A banner made up of many black and white images collaged together. Images include protest banners, animals, buildings, and statues.

New From STAND News

Want to write for us?

Fill out the form below to join the STAND News team.