Despite a global brand as a reckless Twitter addict and loudmouth, Donald Trump has a history of behaving himself in formal legal settings. Before he was president, the real estate heir was deposed dozens of times, mostly in various lawsuits related to his businesses, which have been accused of discriminating against black people, screwing over renters, and stiffing contractors. When pressed to tell the truth under penalty of perjury in formal depositions, Trump has tended to provide something resembling it.

On Monday, the New York Times reported that most of the president's lawyers have advised him to rebuff requests from the special counsel's office for a sit-down interview as part of the ongoing investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. According to the paper, Trump's attorneys are nervous that—among other things—he might tell a lie if he got in a room with Mueller or his team, which is a federal crime when the FBI is involved. If Trump refused a request to chat, Mueller could issue a subpoena compelling him to testify under oath. Telling fibs in those circumstances would be perjury, a.k.a. an impeachable offense, as Bill Clinton could tell you.

According to the Times, the White House's legal braintrust doesn't think Mueller would actually risk taking the step of subpoenaing the president. That move could result in a court battle that might resemble the dispute from the Watergate era when Richard Nixon refused to fork over the tapes of his Oval Office conversations until the Supreme Court forced him to. Given he's already successfully convicted two Trump associates and is leaning on others, it's not hard to envision Mueller going for the jugular here. Just as Trump's lawyers might be kept up at night by the prospect of what he might say to investigators, Mueller may be licking his chops at the thought of even ten minutes in a room with the guy.

For some insight into how presidents have been compelled to testify in the past, what a Supreme Court ruling on a Trump subpoena might look like, and how the thorny question of his testimony is as much a political question as a legal one, I called up Noah Feldman, a legal historian at Harvard Law School. Here's what we talked about:

VICE: The analogy is often made between the Nixon tapes and Trump's possible testimony. Is that the best example we have of judges forcing a president to talk?
Noah Feldman: There are two relevant precedents. One is the Nixon tapes case, where the Court held that the interest of executive privilege didn't outweigh the interest of an ongoing criminal investigation. And the second is the Clinton-Paula Jones litigation, where the Court said, among other things, that it is well-settled that the president may be made subject to legal process. In that case, it was a civil suit, so even less pressing than a criminal [case]. The president nevertheless was subject to suit. Clinton himself did not make a legal objection to being asked to testify—he claimed that the suit altogether couldn't go forward against him while he was president. But once he lost that, he agreed to speak to [independent prosecutor] Kenneth Starr.

That raises another really fascinating issue, which is that historically, it would always have been said and it was said at the time of the Clinton investigation, that no president could afford as a political matter to refuse to testify on the grounds that he might be incriminating himself. That no president could take the Fifth because the political cost would be too high. And certainly that seems to have been Clinton's belief.

It seems important to note that in this administration, the question of what is too high a cost may have a different meaning.

Does the erosion of political and legal norms under Trump's watch mean that he could get away politically with pleading the Fifth?
It is of course more plausible than it would have been in the past that he could simply say, "I'm pleading the Fifth because I don't want to incriminate myself, but the real reason I'm doing this is not that I'm guilty"—which is what most people would think when someone pleads the Fifth—"but rather because this is an unfair investigation that's designed to be a witch hunt against me and is politicized." He and his lawyers must be trying to make the calculation of whether he can get away with that politically.

Presumably that calculation is also affected by his being a first-term president, unlike both Nixon and Clinton, no? It would be a remarkable statement about where we are in terms of our political culture that a first-term president might actually take that step.
The way I think of it is that every lawyer who's worth his salt would advise a client of the type of Donald Trump to take the Fifth. If you have a client and you don't know exactly what that client will say, you really don't want that client testifying under oath. So the president's personal lawyers would naturally advise him not to testify.

You would give that advice to many, many kinds of clients in many kinds of circumstances. The question is: Is a politician with a national audience who's the president of the United States like an ordinary defendant? And historically the answer has been no, because the cost is too high. But Trump got elected by changing the unwritten rules of the electoral game. Imagine you believe this investigation is a witch hunt by the deep state to try take down the president. In that situation, it might be perfectly justified to plead the Fifth.

Do defense lawyers ever tell their clients to talk to the FBI if they haven't been forced to, as a general rule?
There are circumstances where it's a good idea. If an investigation is in play and you are genuinely confident that your client is genuinely innocent, not only of these charges but of any other conduct, then you would, still under very limited circumstances, arrange something. And what you would probably do is ask the FBI for some kind of promise of immunity for what you said that day—they call it "clean for a day." And then, under those circumstances, you'd tell your accurate story, and with any luck, the FBI is like, "Good point, you're not guilty, we're letting you off the hook."

So sure, that can happen. But if you're in the midst of a complex investigation and people around you may have committed crimes and you don't know exactly what your client has or hasn't done, a wise lawyer would advise clients to keep his or her mouth shut.

Given the Supreme Court's makeup, if Trump refuses an interview request and then tries to rebuff a subpoena, do you think it's plausible that subpoena would be upheld by the Court?
Yes, it is plausible. I mean, there is precedent on point. And I think the justices will seek to follow precedent.

Despite the incredible politicization of the legal system?
I mean, look, the Supreme Court 9-0 said that the Paula Jones [sexual harassment] case could go forward. That was the same Court that then decided Bush v. Gore. There was no change of personnel between the time of the Paula Jones case and Bush v. Gore. So that was a Court that was deeply divided, and not on literally partisan but on quasi-partisan lines. And the Court in the Nixon case, which was also deeply divided on many issues, like Roe v. Wade, the same exact Court decided the Nixon tapes case 9-0. So when there's a conflict between the branches of government, the Court does have a strong impulse to speak with a single voice if it can.

From where you're sitting now, will this president testify to the special counsel—what is the most plausible outcome?
I believe it is much more probable than not that he will testify. But I could be wrong for the simple reason that he could agree to testify and then plead the Fifth on a whole range of issues. That is possible.

That brings us back to the political question: what can he get away with?
Yeah, it's a political judgment. Can he get political cover by claiming the investigation is too politicized. And, again, this is a president who breaks the unwritten rules. Under the unwritten rules, he'll end up testifying, and if he changes the unwritten rules sufficiently, he might not testify.

And he's already changed some of them.
For sure. We're in a very different world.

This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Matt Taylor on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Everyone knows that Trump's golden helmet of hair is fucking weird, even the man himself, but no one can quite agree on why. Is it hair plugs? A rug? Was the president just born with some kind of mutant follicles that naturally sprout brittle, raw spaghetti-strands of hair?

Gawker's 2016 investigation into the secrets of Trump's mane made a compelling case for it being an exorbitantly expensive weave, but conflicting theories abound. A former Apprentice stylist swore that every hair was real, albeit poorly dyed, drugged, and hair-sprayed into submission. Michael Wolff's White House tell-all, Fire and Fury, quotes Ivanka as saying her father's hairdo is the result of a scalp-reduction surgery—likely the same late-80s procedure detailed in The Lost Tycoon.

Unfortunately, none of this amounts to more than hearsay or speculation, since no one has gotten close enough to truly inspect his scalp save for Jimmy Fallon, who squandered his shot on that goddamned ruffle. But on Wednesday, longtime Trump hair reporter Ashley Fienberg spotted video footage of the president that may give us answers, once and for all.

The 20-second clip captures Trump from behind as he boarded Air Force One last Friday. As he's halfway up the stairs, a gust of wind catches him just right and peels away a flap of golden strands to reveal his elusive bald spot, finally laid bare for the world to see!

From the look of it, Ivanka's explanation from Fire and Fury is spot on.

"[Ivanka] often described the mechanics behind it to friends," Wolff writes, "an absolutely clean pate—a contained island after scalp-reduction ­surgery—surrounded by a furry circle of hair around the sides and front, from which all ends are drawn up to meet in the center and then swept back and secured by a stiffening spray."

Trump appears to be sporting an overgrown tonsure, like a monk who's let himself go. The strands from this overgrown ring of hair come up and over his bald spot, shielding it from view, and are then likely held in place by a variety of aerosol-based products.

The clip is not extremely hi-res and does not give us enough to fully plot out the cartography of the president's crown or prove Ivanka's allegations of scalp surgery, but it is a giant leap toward understanding what's really going on up there. If nothing else, it at least disproves the theory that McDonald's fries cure baldness. Pour over the footage frame by frame and draw your own conclusions.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

After more than five years, the Seaside staples—Mike "The Situation," Pauly D, JWoww, Ronnie, Vinny, Deena, and Snooki—will reunite in MTV's Jersey Shore Family Vacation, which, for reasons unexplained, will take place during the winter in Miami.

On Wednesday, MTV announced the reunion's premiere date, April 5, and debuted the first trailer, which really doesn't offer too much. But that's no reason not to pump your fists in excitement! For now, a succession of quick shots is all we need: Pauly hugging somebody, some playful dry-humping, the whole gang holding up their glasses (of water?) for the camera. We also get to see what looks like Snooki about to chug a jar of pickle juice. (We all know how much she loves them.) And Deena is doing what Deena does best: shouting vaguely incoherently at strangers.

"We're your new neighbors!" she screams across the river as rowers go by—surprisingly in an upright position.

There's little we know about what's going to transpire between our favourite guidos and guidettes, but they'll have a lot of catching up to do at Sunday dinner, about—say—Mike's tax evasion or Vinny's recent foray into climate change activism. Still, there are a lot of unanswered questions. Namely: Have they grown up? Is Sammi Sweetheart, who's conspicuously absent, going to make a surprise appearance and profess her undying love for Ronnie? Does JWoww continue to crush coffee beans with a garlic mincer? Will they all work in a T-shirt shop? And, hey, how's Mike's head?

We're just two months away. Yeah, buddy!

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Alex Norcia on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Remember how we’ve all been operating under the assumption that weed would be legal by July 1st? Well, it now appears like it’s going to take a little bit longer than everyone expected. And ironically, Justin Trudeau himself might be the architect of any major delay - thanks to his attempt at Senate reform back in 2014.

Yesterday, federal Health Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor announced that there will be an adjustment period after Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, becomes law. The Liberals’ new timeline will give provinces, retailers, producers, and police an eight- to 12-week grace period to ease into the new marijuana regime. In practice, this means that even if the bill is passed in time to meet the original July 1 deadline, most of us will be lucky to buy any government-approved grass before September 2018.

Of course, this may not be the only delay. The other wildcard at play here is the Canadian Senate. The House of Commons passed C-45 near the end of November 2017, which means the new drug policy is now before the Red Chamber receiving some sober second thought. There are a number of reasons to expect that this might take awhile.

Canada’s Upper House is less than a third the size of the Commons. It has 105 seats, and only 33 of those have a formal partisan affiliation (ie. Conservative). Otherwise there are 39 Senators in the “Independent Senators Group,” a rump caucus of 14 “Senate Liberals” (who are unrecognized by the party), and seven who are altogether non-affiliated with anyone. (You will recall that then-third party leader Justin Trudeau’s solution to 2014’s question of Senate reform was to just fire all senators from his party.)

Conservatives in the Senate have promised that they will not act in a deliberately obstructionist manner, but given the Tories’ resistance to the government’s legalization agenda in the House, you can expect them to give the bill a rough ride.

Meanwhile, the ISG seems beholden to nobody; it’s impossible to guess at what the bulk of them will do with any given piece of legislation, which makes the Senate perversely fascinating to watch. But even if a majority of them ultimately sign off on C-45, they are unlikely to do so until after a very thorough study in committee that may delay the bill even further. And if in the course of all this they find fault with the Liberals’ bill and want to propose amendments, C-45 will have to go back to the House for another tussle before becoming law.

It’s a slog, but this process is a reasonably good method of crafting reasonably good laws in a reasonably complicated political system. It’s not just not necessarily great for meeting a tight, self-imposed deadline.

If a delay in the Upper Chamber happens, expect the subject of Senate reform in Canada to flare up again. Senators are well within their constitutional right to slap down anything they deem to be slapdash legislation from the Commons, but it does involve the awkward acknowledgement that this is explicitly an anti-democratic function. This is unlikely to trigger a constitutional crisis about the democratic legitimacy of Parliament, but it will give the NDP a good arrow in their rhetorical hilt if Trudeau’s legalization goes sideways. As to whether or not the prime minister will come to regret unilaterally overhauling the political ecosystem in the Senate, that will likely depend largely on how much the Independents embarrass him.

Anyway, the whole process will need to be finished by late May or June to hit the old July 1 timeline—that is, the earliest day the Liberals’ two-to-three-month transition clock starts ticking. But if C-45 spends a while in the Senate under a magnifying glass and/or has to make another hike through the Commons again in the spring, it could very well take longer. You’ll likely be able to stock up on legal skunk by the time the leaves start to change, but there are unlikely odds that the bill won’t get Royal Assent until after Parliament’s summer break, in which case you’ll be waiting to unwrap some blunts beneath your Christmas tree.

Of course, odds are good that everything will be more-or-less settled away by the end of September. But it’s probably not a bad idea to adjust your expectations about the legal marijuana timetable. Regardless of the Senate’s shenanigans, prohibition is not going anywhere yet. Adjust your Canada Day plans to do bong rips in the police station parking lot accordingly.

Follow Drew Brown on Twitter.

This story has been updated with comment from Maurice Thibeault's lawyer Richard Pollock.

A woman is suing her former boyfriend after he allegedly fled town with a $6.1-million winning lottery ticket.

In a statement of claim provided to VICE, Denise Robertson said that she was in a two-year common-law relationship with Maurice Thibeault when he purchased a winning lottery ticket worth $6.1 million in September. Robertson is seeking half the winnings plus punitive damages. The two, as first reported by the Toronto Star, apparently bought tickets together all the time and had an agreement that they would split it if, somehow, they won—hell, they even allegedly planned out what they would do if they won.

Screenshot from the statement of claim.

“They always agreed that if they had a winning ticket, the proceeds would be theirs, together as a couple,” reads the statement of claim. “Together they dreamed of winning the lottery. They both love muscle cars, they would buy one and a large property in the country and build a workshop to work on their cars.”

Well, on September 20 of last year their number was drawn, and, upon hearing that the winning ticket was sold in their area, Robertson excited texted Thibeault. However, the next day Thibeault inaccurately broke it to Robertson that they did not win.

A few days later, Thibeault told Robertson that he had to go to a work site in London, Ontario, which wasn’t too out of the norm for him. Throughout the day Robertson texted him to see if his drive was going OK and never heard back. Upon getting home from work she, as the statement of claim puts it, “was shocked to find that Maurice had packed up and removed all his clothes, his toiletries, most other personal items and his passport”—which you know is a bummer.

The next day a mutual friend told Robertson that Thibeault had the winning ticket and had already quit his job in anticipation for the millions coming his way—which is a WAY bigger bummer. Robertson had heard that Thibeault was on his way to Toronto to cash the ticket and hired some lawyers who had the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation halt payment of the ticket.

The text that Thibeault sent to his boss. Screenshot from the statement of claim.

The statement of claim takes a rather, shall we say, strong stance against Thibeault, saying he behaved with “deceit, arrogance, high-handedness, and a callous disregard for Denise and her rights.” Since they’re only disputing half of the winnings, Robertson’s lawyer, Steve Pickard, told VICE that half of the amount has already been paid out to Thibeault. On top of the winnings, Robertson and Pickard are also asking for $500,000 in punitive damages from Thibeault.

“I think that people in general expect a certain standard from their community. It’s one thing to say she is entitled to the money in law, but it’s another to show people that they shouldn’t act this way,” said Pickard. “That is why we are going to ask for punitive damages. He did this in a really conniving sort of way, and I think the courts should send a message that you can’t act like this.”

The Toronto Star reported that friends of Thibeault said he was planning on leaving Robertson and that no such agreement to split the winnings was in place. Thibeault's lawyer, Richard Pollock, provided VICE with a statement saying, "Mr . Thibeault denies any agreement, has nothing to hide and has fully cooperated with OLGC 's investigation." The statement claims that Robertson has "not co-operated with investigators" and is "using the media to exact a settlement." It adds that Thibeault has "has voluntarily submitted to a polygraph examination, the results of which he is prepared to share to protect his reputation."

Pickard told VICE that Canadian courts haven’t seen this exact situation, but that it does parallel past cases which revolved around co-workers purchasing tickets together. In those cases past behaviour has been proven through purchase history.

“The cases show that if there is an intention when they bought the ticket to be shared than it is supposed to be shared,” said Pickard. “It’s all in the intention.”

Follow Mack Lamoureux on Twitter.

Global warming is threatening to wash away New Orleans, ruin sushi, burn Phoenix to a crisp, screw up our coffee, kill the Great Barrier Reef, drown Venice, and bombard us with a shit ton of mosquitoes—but according to Scott Pruitt, the rising temperatures might actually be a good thing.

Pruitt, the head of Trump's Environmental Protection Agency, has long been a friend of the fossil fuel industry and a climate change skeptic. He's insisted that there's some disagreement on "the degree and extent of global warming" and even gone so far as to question humanity's role in the whole phenomenon. Now, in an interview with Las Vegas's KSNV, he admitted that the planet is warming, but said he doesn't really think it's all that bad.

"I think there's assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing," the EPA chief said. "Is it an existential threat? Is it something that is unsustainable? Or what kind of effect or harm is this going to have? We know that humans have most flourished during times of, what, warming trends?"

Climate change skeptics have been harping on that theory for years—Republican Senator Ron Johnson made the point in 2016, saying that "mankind has actually flourished in warmer temperatures." But as New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait points out, it doesn't hold up when you account for how quickly the planet is warming up these days compared to the rates we've seen in the past. According to NASA's Gavin Schmidt, that pace is "unprecedented in 1,000 years," which is a problem.

But with America's coal interests and Rick Perry suggesting that fossil fuel production could help stop sexual assault, the theory that a hotter planet might actually be a good thing hasn't gone away. Trump basically made the point himself back when the bomb cyclone hit.

While most Americans believe we should probably do something about global warming and the man-made CO2 that causes it, for some reason, Pruitt keeps insisting that we can't be too sure about climate change—at least until a bunch of scientists debate about it on TV.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Drew Schwartz on Twitter.

Related: VICE News Investigates the True Cost of Climate Denial

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

A few months after Vancouver approved new regulations on short-term rentals, British Columbia’s government has announced a provincial tax on Airbnb.

Today BC Finance Minister Carol James told reporters the new eight percent sales tax on Airbnb rentals is about a “level playing field” and a “fair tax system.” Announced in partnership with Airbnb’s policy director Alex Dagg, the new tax is expected to collect an extra $16 million in revenue, which James says will be earmarked for affordable housing.

James said the Airbnb agreement is the first of its kind in BC, and “recognizes the reality today, not only in BC but across country.” The sharing economy is here to stay, said James, and the impact of “home sharing” on housing availability can’t be ignored any longer.

The agreement will also allow municipalities and regional districts to set their own regulations and take an additional tax of up to three percent. Money collected by local governments will be used to promote tourism, according to James.

Starting in April 2018, Vancouver will require everyone renting a home or room for under 30 days to pay an annual $49 licensing fee as well as a one-time $54 activation fee. The new rules were approved last November after the city found nearly 6,000 “illegal” short-term rentals listed across 10 sites including Airbnb.

“We've seen evidence from other cities that short-term rentals not only take away from the long-term supply, but put upward pressures on rents,” the city’s GM of development Kaye Krishna said at the time. “We feel the proposed regulations will protect long-term rental supply while enabling supplemental income for residents."

Before that, the tiny surf destination of Tofino was one of the first local BC governments to crack down on Airbnb rentals with business licensing and zoning requirements.

“It really is different in every community,” said James. “They really are best suited to determine what makes sense.”

Dagg stressed the tax agreement considered renters and homeowners who use Airbnb as a source of supplementary income. She said short-term rentals will continue to help BCers “stay in their homes during hard financial times.”

Follow Sarah on Twitter.

Get ready to witness a kid's worst nightmare.

A mom who grew completely fed up with her son's gaming habit decided that she needed to lay down the law. But instead of simply taking his PS4 away, she grabbed a hammer and went to town on the controllers, smashing them to bits while the things were still on.

Obviously, the kid wasn't happy about it. But luckily for us, the entire demolition was caught on tape, and VICELAND's Desus and Mero watched in awe at the Snapchat footage that captured the console's cruel demise.

You can watch the latest episode of Desus & Mero for free online now, and be sure to catch new episodes weeknights at 11 PM on VICELAND.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

On February 1, a video shared widely on Twitter showed Border Patrol agents asking people on an Amtrak train if they were American citizens. The 27-year-old who took the footage later explained to the Syracuse Post-Standard that the federal agent was questioning only certain people, raising in some people's minds the specter of racial profiling. That news came just a week after a separate video showed the same thing happening on a Greyhound bus in South Florida. To those already worried about America slowly transforming into a police state, this seemed like one more sign that immigration authorities are abusing their power. As one person on Twitter put it in response to the Syracuse video, "All those who voted for Trump are responsible for this most reprehensible behavior. But, I guess we shouldn't expect anything less from a #NaziSympathizer."

Leaving the Nazi comparisons aside, it certainly makes sense to wonder why Border Patrol is allowed to board a private bus or train without a ticket, not to mention question riders without a warrant or probable cause. Jordan Wells, a staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union and a former Latinx rights scholar at the New York University School of Law, said that this practice predates the Trump administration but that it's become both more common—and more aggressive—in the past year. He told me that the authority they're relying on comes from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which allows Border Patrol officers to search "any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle" near the border for undocumented immigrants.

But Wells wondered whether such searches would hold up in court. "The question becomes, this statute, which has not been interpreted yet by the Supreme Court in light of the Constitution: Is it constitutional?" he said. "I don't think they've been forced to justify the practice in any formal setting."

Here's what else we talked about:

VICE: What should you do if you're undocumented and the Border Patrol asks for ID in these circumstances?
Jordan Wells: I think that all of us—undocumented or documented—have the choice to remain silent and not consent to any search of our belongings. And in general, that's a right everyone should be mindful of. As a non-citizen, if you do have a registration document issued by the government, whether it's a green card or a work authorization document, then you should be carrying that with you. And you ought to show that to the officer. As for the people who choose to invoke their right to remain silent and not engage with the officer's questioning, you have to remember that that itself cannot provide the necessary level of suspicion the officer would have to have to take you into custody. As a practical matter, it's at least going to prolong the encounter if you refuse to engage with the officer's questioning.

They're playing on people's intuition that they must cooperate. On the one hand, as a practical matter, they're imposing on people and playing on the hope that people won't know their rights. On the other hand, you see them defend this in various public statements as a consensual encounter. In person, it's an intimidating, direct request from an officer with a gun who's standing right in front of you. They're saying these are just consensual conversations. That's of course a total fiction. But in order to present themselves as within constitutional boundaries, they have to say that. And the reality is, what if someone said, "I'm not engaging with you. None of your business." Or to take it one step further, "I don't speak English." Do you think there's any chance that's the end of that encounter?

Obviously, the power dynamic between a Border Patrol agent and an undocumented person is different than between an agent and someone who has documentation or is a citizen. But if you're in the latter category, does refusing to show your ID if help those who might be in danger by jamming up the process?
Yes. I think people should consider asserting their rights. Thank goodness there's no obligation in the Constitution for US citizens to carry around identification. And obviously there's a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. They should tell people around them to exercise that right, too. They could say, "I'm not required to answer your questions," or, "I wish to remain silent." And if you're at a safe distance from one of these encounters, you can record it on your phone and share it.

The way that the Amtrak incident in Syracuse was described makes it seem like white passengers were skipped over. If racial profiling is taking place, will this practice see its day in court like stop and frisk did?
That's another super important protection we all have, which is the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause. Insofar as they are singling people out on the basis of impermissible characters like race, then an independent constitutional violation is being committed. I do think that the scrutiny that the agency is now under based on these viral videos should help expose them. But then there's two ways it could go. One is the dragnet version where everyone has to take out their ID, because they're talking to everyone. That's bad on its own as a Fourth Amendment matter. But then it would compound that if they make a show pretending that it's everyone but it's just people of color or people who speak with an accent. That would be an independent basis for finding the practice is unconstitutional.

Do undocumented people have the ability to file a lawsuit to challenge this sort of thing?
Yes, they do. Unlawful law enforcement action does not become lawful because of a person’s immigration status. Under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution—including the Equal Protection Clause and the Fourth Amendment—protects everyone’s rights.

Lastly, are you freaked out by all of this? People have not missed the opportunity to call this practice reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
I don't want to put it in terms of Nazi stuff. But look, the ACLU of Florida tweeted out what people's rights were if Border Patrol boarded their bus. Look how Customs and Border Patrol responded—they puffed up their chest. For that law enforcement agency to clap back with that citation of a provision of law that seems to give them an extraordinary authority to board and search vessels and cars and aircraft—I think that's chilling. The Constitution is something that every law enforcement officer should know and be proud to apply in their duties. I think seeing this sort of zealous and prideful invocation of their authority to invade people's privacy is a scary thing to see in 2018.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Allie Conti on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Queerness and Islam have long been intertwined, even if the average outsider now sees them as incongruous or irreconcilable. Even in the 13th and 14th century, Islamic mystical poet-theologians like Rumi and Hafiz wrote odes about queer love. And though the struggle to see acceptance of queer Muslims is ongoing, a growing movement of contemporary art from queer Muslim and Islamic perspectives is helping to bridge the two worlds today. With The Third Muslim, a new exhibit at San Francisco’s SOMArts, those perspectives are brought closer than ever before.

Running through February 22, the show features 15 artists working in a variety of mediums, from fashion to painting to poetry. Contributors include photographer Samra Habib, who created the Queer Muslim Project, which documents the portraits and stories of queer Muslims; Ayqa Khan, known for illustrations that normalize body hair; disability justice activist Kiyaan Abadani, and more.

The “third Muslim” is a reference to the many identities both assumed and transposed on queer and trans Muslims, who inhabit a third space outside notions of a monolithic Islam and cisgendered, white, able-bodied queerness. Curator Yas Ahmed relates the idea of creating meaning through third spaces to the Islamic concept of itijihad, which loosely interpreted means an ongoing practice of critical thinking and spiritual examination. “In many ways, this exhibit is overdue,” said Ahmed.

VICE spoke with Ahmed, a writer and co-founder of the Muslim Alliance for Sexual and Gender Diversity, and co-curator Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, an artist, drag queen and performer, about their experience putting together a show that’s as challenging to its audience’s perception of both queer and Muslim identities as it is a showcase of beautiful work.

A portrait by photographer Nabeela Vega, from the series "Visiting Thahab"

VICE: How did you conceive of this exhibit?
Yas Ahmed: We met through mutual friends within the queer and trans* Muslim community during the summer of 2016. We talked about art, activism, identity—and then began collaborating in earnest for about a year and a half.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: Our friendship was fairly new, but it made sense. Both of us come from multi-racial/multi-ethnic backgrounds, we both identify with queerness and Islam, and we had been devoting time towards that. The idea came from a need to find community. Muslims in general, and queer and trans Muslims specifically, are often judged, silenced, and vilified in the media. We have voices and we can speak for ourselves. When we saw the call for a SOMArts Curatorial Residency, we knew our opportunity had arisen.

"Cloak," by Jamil Hellu

What has been your reaction to attention the show has received thus far?
YA: Queer and trans* Muslims have been “sexy”—timely, resonant, compelling—in the media, in funding, etcetera, for a minute. So I think it makes sense. With increased visibility comes increased responsibility. We’re continually pushing back against monolithic or reductive notions of what it means to be queer and/or trans* and Muslim. It’s a discursive shift where queer and trans* Muslim voices speak for themselves, to wider audiences. The culture is changing.

ZAB: We are caught between creating visibility around queerness and Islam, while maintaining safety and security. We can’t guarantee that we’ll do everything 100 percent right, or that this show will strike every chord within the queer and trans* Muslim, ex-Muslim, half-Muslim, it’s-complicated-Muslim psyche. But we want to ensure that the artists are represented in a way that they feel comfortable with.

It’s hard to say if all this attention is another way of co-opting our movements and our struggles. Could it also be a way of assuaging guilt from colonial rule, the brutal war on terror? Being queer does not put us in opposition to people of our religion or culture—it just means we have an extra weight to carry.

The attention reveals a few things, not all super positive. One thing it does reveal is that Queer and trans* Muslim cultural producers are ready to be a part of something bigger, we are self identifying and also redefining queerness, we are owning it as an idea.

Watch Broadly profile an Islamic feminist cult:

Can you take us through the exhibit? How did you set it up?
YA: We wanted people to really “feel” the different dimensions of the stories as they walked through the exhibition. This is, in part, why the exhibition includes literary art in the form of poetry, mixed media visual art using textiles, fabric and paint, video and photography, and several soundscapes.

ZAB: When people enter the gallery, they can see the breadth of the show. The first works of art you see have a very intentional gaze, a stare both confrontational and compelling. Each piece breaths on its own, while in dialogue with the pieces around it.

Do you see some common themes in the show’s artwork?
YA: Each piece tells different stories. Many of them reflect the ethnic heritage or heritages of the exhibiting artist. Many explore the hyphenated identities of the artist, and displacement, both literal and figurative.

Is this the first exhibit of its kind in the US?
ZAB: As far as we know, this is the first of this scale. I find it hard to believe that queer and trans* Muslim artists have not gathered to show their work before. We may not have had this kind of platform, to not only have a month-long exhibition in one of San Francisco’s largest single exhibition spaces, but also have three free public events. The difference now is that we are actively documenting what we are doing, so that in the future, there is a tangible archive for people to build from.

How did your art-activism develop?
YA: That’s such a tough question! There are too many people to name comprehensively. My go-to writing influence has been James Baldwin. In his text, his fiction, his analysis, there is always something else to uncover for me. In music, Stevie Wonder and Bill Withers. Historical fiction. Les Feinberg, a white, working class transgender anti-zionist Jew, broadened my understanding of allyship. These days, I’m inspired by Afro-futurism—and Kiese Laymon, Colson Whitehead, the venerable Octavia Butler. Afro-futurism invites us to imagine differently.

My activism is mostly influenced by the mandate for it.

ZAB: Very tough question. I was raised in a left-wing, and by US standards, incredibly radical environment. My father’s side has been a part of Pakistani politics since even before the creation of the state of Pakistan; my mother’s side of the family were all active in the Lebanese Communist Club. Some of my father’s family worked deep within the Pakistani political establishment, whereas others, like my father, were far more on the margins. He worked at a grassroots level, campaigning against police brutality and the treatment of minorities in Pakistan. He was exiled from Pakistan—my sister and I were born in Kabul and Damascus respectively. When he came back to Pakistan, he was arrested, released, and then killed outside our home when I was six years old. Previous and later assassinations in my family shaped the way I see activism and the need for political change.

Even a family trip to Lebanon in 2006 turned into a defiant act when Israel invaded—we made the conscious choice to stay and simply exist through the length of the war. A ceasefire eventually forced Israel out.

I carry these histories with me. They are a part of who I am and the way I move in world. I consider my positionality as a Queer Muslim and my activism as an extension of the work my family has done, as well as those who have come before us.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Aditi Natasha Kini on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Elisia Manuel remembers when she and her husband Tecumseh received their first foster child. “We had to go buy the boy some clothes,” she told me. “We had to get him everything, because he came with nothing. The agency even had to lend us a car seat to bring him home.” Elisia, who comes from the Mescalero Apache and Yaqui tribes, and Tecumseh, an Akimel O’odham from the Gila River Indian Community located just south of Phoenix, were thrilled to get a Native child to care for—even if it meant completely outfitting the little boy, purchasing a heavy-duty washer, and finding other supplies.

But state and tribal child welfare agencies say that Native foster families like the Manuels are hard to find. And that shortage can cause havoc when non-Native foster families wishing to adopt a Native child try to circumvent a law designed to keep tribal kids in their communities. Nationwide, American Indian and Alaska Native children are placed into foster care at a rate 2.7 times greater than their proportion in the general population, according to the National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA). With a disproportionate number of Native kids removed from their homes each year, the need for Native foster homes is huge—and there aren’t enough to meet the need. That shortage leads to non-Native foster parents taking in kids from tribal communities. Sometimes, those foster parents decide they want to adopt the foster child even though the law is supposed to prevent virtually all such non-Native adoptions.

This has led to nasty fights over custody; one highly publicized dispute was over Lexi, a young Choctaw girl whose foster parents sued to prevent her being given to the girl’s paternal family. The case stretched over four years and attracted international media attention until 2016, when the case was resolved in favour of her father’s family. In 2013, a little girl known as Baby Veronica was at the center of yet another maelstrom, this time after her non-Native mother turned her over for adoption leaving her Native father to fight for her return. This time, the outcome was different: The non-Indian adoptive family got to keep the girl.

To understand these disputes, you have to know the painful history behind them. Before the enactment of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the law that governs removal and placements of Native kids, 25 to 35 percent of Native children nationwide were being removed from their families, according to NICWA.

Montana’s Department of Health and Human Services’ Child and Family Division found that prior to ICWA’s enactment, nearly 80 percent of all Native families had lost at least one child to the foster care system, thus posing the real risk of tribal extinction. Minnesota’s Department of Human Services found that the children who were removed were “at great risk for experiencing psychological trauma leading to long-term emotional and psychological problems as adults” due to losing cultural and family connections.

Eighty-five percent of those children removed from their homes were placed outside of their families and communities by state courts, welfare agencies, and private adoption agencies, despite many “fit and willing relatives” who could have taken in those children. In fact, family fostering is the norm in Indian Country, but states did not realize, or recognize, that fact. This can still be an issue, although after 40 years of educating state child welfare workers, it’s starting to change. Over the past decade, the federal government has finally issued compliance guidelines for ICWA for states and other entities. That’s helped to reduce the number of placements outside tribal communities, although more needs to be done, according to author Shanna Knight in the publication ABA Child Law Practice.

But now, with a perceived increase in legal challenges to ICWA, including a challenge by the Goldwater Institute that the US Supreme Court declined to hear last year, the need for tribal foster homes to prevent these agonizing battles grows ever greater.

The Manuels, who now have six kids in their home—three of whom they’ve adopted—are one of just a few foster homes in tribal communities.

The lack of Native foster families across the nation is “a serious issue,” David Simmons, director of government affairs and advocacy for NICWA, told me. “Recruitment and retention of foster parents isn’t there.”

Simmons regularly advises state child welfare systems, “Don’t assume mainstream methods will work with Native American families—you need a cultural approach, based on relationships.” Care by kin is “very big” in tribal communities, Simmons said.

Then, there’s the matter of trust. “There’s a historic distrust [of state and federal government] in Native communities,” Simmons told me.

Native families also can have trouble meeting strict care home standards. “For example, the child’s room must be a certain size to qualify the home as a foster home,” Simmons said. But ICWA contains a provision that states should treat tribal foster homes according to the tribes’ standards of cultural norms, such as extended families raising children. Also, the law trumps state regulations such as the home structure or how many people reside in the home. Arizona is home to 22 tribal communities, and nearly 28 percent of the state is tribal lands.

Despite this, Kenneth Poocha, the tribal liaison for the Arizona Department of Child Safety, told me that there is a shortage of Native foster homes in Arizona for the 1,500 Native kids in the state’s system—about 10 percent of the state’s current total foster child population. “There are a variety of reasons as to why this may be,” Poocha, a member of the Hopi Tribe, said. For one thing, “Many Native American families that may be willing to be a foster home are simply not aware of the process or even how to begin.”

Poocha and his office are actively recruiting foster families, but it’s not an easy proposition, even though families operating homes licensed by the Arizona Department of Child Safety receive payments up to nearly $29 a day, and more for children requiring more medical and/or behavioral care. Poocha also says that in Arizona, tribally certified foster homes are considered to meet state regulations.

When Native foster families can’t be found, state child welfare staff must place them with non-Native parents, creating a complicated situation for the foster and birth families and the child’s tribe. A non-Native foster mother living in Phoenix I spoke to requested that her name not be used because she’s fearful of harassment from Native activists upset that non-Indians are caring for tribal children. The single working mom has had the boy, now nearly four years old, for a year.

“I was his third home in two months,” she told me. “I wouldn’t have taken him if I had known how many needs he had.” But she added that after some time, she realized that “this is the child I was meant to have.”

The boy had been severely neglected and “completely deprived of attention,” she told me. His separation anxiety is so bad, “I go to the bathroom and his fingers go under the door.” The boy had no words when he first came to the mom’s home, he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder from witnessing domestic violence, he had severe social and behavioral issues and developmental delays, and his immune system wasn’t well developed. “He had chronic fevers,” the mother told me.

All these issues are symptoms of toxic stress caused by adverse childhood experiences, which if not corrected by putting the child in a better environment can result in cognitive and health deficits that last a lifetime. The Phoenix foster mom thinks that the boy’s birth mother “probably suffered from adverse childhood experiences herself.”

The mom said that the child’s tribe, which is peripherally involved, would like for him and his three siblings to be reunited. However, “there are no placements that can handle all four of them,” the foster mom told me. “I think it would be cool to do cultural things with him, but we’ve been in survival mode all this time.” The foster mom supports eventually sending the boy home, once the birth mom “gets her act together,” she said.

There’s widespread agreement that the best solution would be to place Native children in Native homes, but there are material obstacles in the way that the ICWA can’t solve.

One of those obstacles is supplies. Recalling their early struggles with obtaining needed supplies for their first foster child, Elisia and Tecumseh Manuel decided that other Native foster parents needed support with basic needs like diapers and clothing. The couple established a nonprofit called Three Precious Miracles in the hopes of making it easier for Native families to foster children.

Today the organization provides clothing, cribs, car seats, and a support group for parents. Elisia says she’s received calls for help from as far away as South Dakota, although most of her work is done in Arizona.

Elisia Manuel showed me the warehouse in Sacaton, Arizona, where Three Precious Miracles is located. The room is packed to the ceiling with diapers, coats, clothing and toys. “These shoes are provided by Vans,” Elisia told me, showing off a shelving unit full of children’s shoes. “But I do need a couple more cribs.”

As we spoke, a Native American lady walked in, searching for supplies for a newborn baby who she was told would be coming to her home. “I need everything,” the woman, who drove more than 20 miles from the other end of the Gila River Reservation, said. Elisia handed her a form to fill out, so her staff could start putting together supplies for Arizona’s newest foster child.

That done, Elisia locked up and headed back to her real work—caring for her six adopted and foster kids. “These are the center of our lives,” she said, pointing to a picture of the three adopted children. “These are my heart.”

Reporting for this story was supported by the USC Center for Health Journalism ‘s Health Journalism Fellowship.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

This article originally appeared on VICE Netherlands

As someone with an Egyptian background living in the Netherlands, I'm constantly forced to laugh off poor attempts at flirting that focus solely on my race. "Arab guys make me so horny – I hear you're all very dominant and aggressive in bed," was one example. "You’re quite handsome for a Moroccan," was another.

It's clear that, for some people, having sex with me would just be another exotic experience to tick off their bucket list, like wakeboarding or salsa classes. On the flip-side of this fetishisation are guys who won't date me purely because of my roots; I’ve had people tell me to my face that they're just not attracted to "foreigners". This kind of exclusion based on race is rampant all over – like on Grindr, where countless profiles feature terms like "no Asians" or "no blacks".

I was curious to see if experiencing racism in the dating scene is as common as it seems to be, so I spoke to seven people of colour in the Netherlands about the part race plays when they're out, dating someone, or in their sex lives.

Sarah, 22, Student

Photo courtesy of Sarah

VICE: Hey Sarah, have you ever had to deal with unpleasant sexual comments based on your race?
Sarah: Yes, all the time. Guys have asked whether my vagina is pink or not on more than one occasion. Usually, it isn't even meant to be funny. And I'm often on the receiving end of racist "jokes" when I'm out in bars and clubs, like people saying, "I didn't see you there, you're so dark." I also get comments that are meant to be nice, but are incredibly ignorant. "You're so good-looking for a black girl," or, "You're the first black girl I've kissed." It has ruined so many nice dates, because I don’t want to feel like an experiment. I'm not an exotic piece of fruit you can try and toss away if it's not for you.

How do you respond to comments like that?
I usually just tell people it isn't cool to say stuff like that. It's so infuriating when I’m flirting with a guy and, out of nowhere, he just makes a joke about my skin colour. I have to keep calm, though, or I'll run the risk of being labelled an angry black woman.

I also have to watch how I dress so I'm not automatically seen as a "ghetto girl with a big ass who probably loves to twerk", as one guy once described me. I’m proud of my West African roots, but I don’t want that to be the only thing people see of me.

Do you ever get ignored because of it?
Absolutely, and it's just as annoying. Loads of times I've gone out with my white mates and I was the only one who didn't get any attention from guys at all.

Myrna, 21, Fashion Designer

Photo courtesy of Myrna

VICE: Can you give an example of racist comments you've received that were meant in a sexy way?
Myrna: Recently, a guy came up to me and told me I looked "sexy exotic". In bars, I always get comments about my curls that are meant in a flirty way, but can be quite intimidating.

Is it always bad?
Well, I've had men say I'm more exciting than white girls, which I take as a compliment rather than a racist insult, so that's not too bad. It's just the prejudice and exclusion coming from some comments which is the issue for me.

What do you mean exactly?
I noticed that a lot of white guys assume that I would never like them, because they think I would only go for Moroccan or Turkish boys, for example. My boyfriend is actually white, and some people are shocked when they find out. And it's not a lot of fun when I'm out with my friends and I'm the only one who's being ignored by guys.

Shamiro, 32, Event Planner

Photo courtesy of Shamiro

VICE: Have you ever had to deal with sexual comments based on your race?
Shamiro: I’m pretty certain almost every person of colour has experienced that, yeah. A friend once told me there are these sex parties where black men are treated like gold dust, because we're seen as wild sex machines to lust after. Women I meet when I'm going out start talking about my hair, tell me I have this "exotic" coconut smell, or are curious about what's down my pants.

Generally, what assumptions do people make about black men?
That we're unfaithful, have enormous dicks and are always horny. A girl once said that she didn’t want to go out with me because she suspected my penis was too big for her, while a lot of white girls who get to know me say that I'm "not like other black guys", even though they’ve never dated a black guy. They've just gone ahead and made the assumption that black guys don't treat women very well.

Do you sometimes feel excluded in the dating scene because of your skin colour?
Yeah – sometimes women tell me outright that they're not attracted to black men. And when I was younger, I had a girlfriend who wouldn't introduce me to her parents because they didn't accept the fact that we were together.

Do you attract certain types?
The white girls who pride themselves on how much they're attracted to black men, and go on and on about how much black culture they consume. All they talk about is how much they love Kanye West, like I'm supposed to be impressed by that.

WATCH: Hate Thy Neighbour – The Battle Over Free Speech

Elia*, 25, Refugee from Morocco

VICE: Hey Elia, what sort of comments do you have to deal with when trying to date people in the Netherlands?
Elia: On Grindr, loads of men start conversations by calling me "master", because Arab men are seen as dominant in bed. That's why I decided not to have sex with white people any more, because I’m tired of being fetishised and made to feel like I’m only around to fulfil other people's sexual fantasies. And I don’t really go to gay bars any more, because I never feel comfortable. When I had just arrived in the Netherlands, I went to a gay bar and a bunch of older guys there thought I'd be up for anything. They kept buying drinks, they were touching me and demanded I come home with them – I don't want to be in that situation again.

What's the weirdest thing you've experienced?
When I was living in a refugee centre in the northeast of the Netherlands, older white men would regularly drive to the camp just to try and sleep with refugees. I've been harassed by a guy there for that reason.

Wow. And do you experience rejection because of your race, too?
Oh yeah, absolutely. People say things like, "I'm not racist, but I'm just not attracted to Moroccans."

Tothu, 24, Student

Photo courtesy of Tothu.

VICE: How often do people make assumptions about your sexuality because of your race?
Tothu: All the time. Men assume I'm either wild or submissive in bed, or think I'm some sort of Japanese Hentai character. I'm not even Japanese. Once, on Tinder, this guy who literally had the term "yellow fever" on his profile wouldn’t leave me alone. Also, lots of men aren't shy about openly saying they want to sleep with me because they suspect I have a "tight vagina".

Do you always find the comments annoying?
Yes – I love getting a compliment about me as an individual, but being labelled on your ethnicity is never fun. I don’t want to hear, "You’re so beautiful for an Asian," or anything like it. One time, when I told someone at a party that I thought the DJ was hot, their response was that the DJ probably "wouldn't like spring rolls".

Do you think you attract certain types?
I do attract people who see having sex with me as ticking some kind of box. One guy I slept with told a friend that he'd done it with "a Vietnamese girl", like it was all just an experiment for him.

Loubna*, 27

VICE: Have you ever had to deal with unpleasant sexual comments because of your race?
Loubna: When I still wore a headscarf, guys would often try to intimidate me with looks, or by asking if I was still a virgin. Or they'd tell me they thought I probably would be hotter without it. A man once asked me if I was good at anal sex because he'd heard that Moroccan girls loved it as a way to stay a virgin before marriage. It's not as bad now that I don't wear one any more, but I still get told that I look exotic, or that it's their dream to have sex with an Arab girl.

How do you react to these kind of comments?
I used to be pretty shy, so I never said anything back and just felt dirty. I'm a bit more confident now and I’ll speak up if I feel something is inappropriate. But I also don't pay too much attention to it. I know girls who feel like they have to adopt the "exotic, submissive" persona just to get attention. I don’t want to judge them, but personally I don't like it – it only encourages certain prejudices.

Do you sometimes feel like guys won't flirt with you because of your background?
I think there are two extremes – white men who don’t give you any attention because they think you're all set for an arranged marriage, or will only go for Muslim guys. And then there are the guys who think Arab girls are desperate for any man, and they assume they can act however they like towards us.

Reza, 30, DJ

Photo courtesy of Reza

VICE: What sort of comments do you deal with being Iranian in the Dutch dating scene?
Reza: People often ask me if I’m circumcised, and if so, how that feels. There aren’t actually that many prejudices about Iranian men. Some people assume we all treat women badly, because they think they're considered inferior in my culture.

How do you usually respond?
The circumcision thing is just a weird question – I can’t compare it to anything, so what am I meant to say? Mostly I just laugh and try to change the subject. But when it comes to women assuming that I'll inevitably treat them badly, I go out of my way to prove that I’m a good guy.

So some women rule out dating you simply because of your race?
Yes – some say quite openly that they're just not interested in Middle Eastern men, but I don’t actually mind. For some people, you will never be good enough, no matter how hard you try. I can't force anyone to like me.

*Names have been changed to protect identities.

This article originally appeared on VICE NL.

Since long before he became President, speculation has raged around the hair on Donald Trump's head. Is it real? Yes, apparently. "Thin, but real," according to one woman Trump invited to touch his hair at a rally in 2015, presumably hoping to put those vicious toupee rumours to bed.

Barbara Walters also copped a feel, as did Jimmy Fallon and an audience member at another rally. And all said the hair appears to be real – so yes, fine, we can agree on that. However, the President has never been properly interrogated about what that real hair is hiding; whether it has been strategically arranged to mask a bald spot, or if it's just business as usual underneath.

If Trump has a bald spot, fine: he's 71. Men lose their hair. It's not a big deal. What is a big deal is the potential concealment by a world leader – a charge backed up by two recent pieces of evidence:

- From Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury, a passage recounting Ivanka Trump's description of her father's comb-over: "She often described the mechanics behind it to friends: an absolutely clean pate – a contained island after scalp-reduction ­surgery – surrounded by a furry circle of hair around the sides and front, from which all ends are drawn up to meet in the centre and then swept back and secured by a stiffening spray."

- This video from yesterday where a gust of wind blows Trump's hair upwards and all you can see is scalp:

Anyway, after Trump's supposed hair-styling regime was unveiled in Fire and Fury, Dan Evans – one of our favourite illustrators – drew a four-step illustrated guide speculating what that regime might look like. Feel free to keep this on file for personal reference.

idrawforfood.co.uk

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

Ever since he was discovered in 1903, Cheddar Man, Britain's oldest complete skeleton, has been both a hero and a mystery. After the discovery, scientists made what they thought to be an accurate recreation of his face—which kind of looked like George Harrison.

But now, thanks to DNA testing, researchers now have a much better idea of who Cheddar Man was. It turns out Britain's ancestor was not some Beatles-adjacent bloke—he had dark skin, curly hair, and bright blue eyes.

On Wednesday's Desus & Mero, the hosts learned more about the new and improved Cheddar Man—who, fun fact, wouldn't have been able to eat cheddar because he couldn't digest milk.

You can watch last night’s Desus & Mero for free online now, and be sure to catch new episodes weeknights at 11 PM on VICELAND.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

America loves Marlboro. According to industry data, the company sold 41 percent of the 258 billion cigarettes smoked by emphysema-loving Yanks in 2016. This is more than the next eight most popular brands combined, with the second – Newport – taking a relatively paltry 13 percent market share.

A question: can you recount an advertising campaign for any cigarettes? The answer to this, if you were born in the 20th century, is that yes, you can think of one, and that one is the Marlboro Man. The Marlboro Man ran from 1955 until 1999, and this dashing cowboy can legitimately claim to be one of the the most enduring advertising icons of the 20th century. He took the reality of inhaling paper-wrapped, ultra-dried, chemical-laced, cancer-causing leaves and made it sexy and aspirational.

The power of adverts to sell us stuff that's shitty for us is incredible, and a new book about tobacco and alcohol advertising celebrates this. 20th Century Alcohol & Tobacco Ads is published this week, so I spoke to its editor – the cultural anthropologist and popular culture historian, Jim Heimann – about how companies flogged us booze and gaspers in the bad old days.

Chesterfield cigarette ads from 1926 and 1928

VICE: Hey Jim. Why do you think the Marlboro Man was so successful? It managed to transcend the product.
Jim Heimann: It represents the ideal of Americanism. It’s the West, with this huge swathe of land, and you’re yourself and you’re strong. It’s a positive reinforcement of what America is all about. But the cowboy has a lot of mystique, too. This lone singular figure who’s self-sufficient and powerful, but also sensitive. The icon is just so strong. It’s a similar thing with Camel – they are such a strong cigarette, and anyone who’s buying them is buying into that macho idea, like James Dean, who’s tough and can have a really strong cigarette.

"Reach for a Lucky – instead of a sweet", Lucky Strike advert from 1929; "No Throat Irritation – No Cough", Lucky Strike advert from 1929

How important were celebrities in popularising smoking?
Celebrity endorsements have always been a part of advertising. In the 1930s you had movie stars talking about how it soothes their throat. Ironically, you had John Wayne advertising them, then dying of lung cancer. By the late 1960s and 70s, the link between lung cancer and smoking was so evident that they had to change their focus.

What about the Joe Camel cartoon adverts in the 80s and 90s?
What happened with Camel was really interesting. They introduced that cartoon character Joe Camel, which was directly appealing to a much younger demographic. They received huge criticism for this and eventually he got banned, because it was clearly appealing to young teenagers. [The cool-but-goofy character turned the company’s fortunes around but saw them targeted by the anti-tobacco lobby; President Clinton welcomed the news of the ban by saying: "We must put tobacco ads like Joe Camel out of our children's reach forever."]

It all feels very geared towards men. What about for the women smokers-to-be?
Well, with the rise of feminism we saw Eve cigarettes, which were marketed specifically at women. So you had Marlboro for the men, Eve for the girls.

Who was traditionally targeted in alcohol adverts?
During Prohibition [1920-1933] there was no alcohol advertising because it wasn’t legally available. But if you look at adverts from the 1940s and 50s, they were mostly aimed at older white men.This changed a little in the 1960s – the demographic changed and you had this whole generation of baby boomers turning 21, and we saw companies adopt more youth-orientated and women-focused campaigns.

A Kent cigarettes advert from 1970

What effect did the civil rights movement have on advertising?
Oh, a huge one. The market for print advertising aimed at a black audience doesn’t really start until the late-50s. Then, in the 60s and 70s, you see a lot of African-Americans featured in the mainstream. As black people achieved parity in society and developed dispensable incomes, more advertising was geared to them.

Has there been a more modern equivalent of this?
You could draw parallels with the Hispanic market these days. When Hispanic immigrants first arrived, most of them didn’t have much money. Now, you’ve got second and third generation families who are very wealthy, and so we’re seeing more advertising aimed at them.

What is the ultimate trope for alcohol adverts?
Lifestyle, definitely. This is why there are so many models on beaches; you see someone drinking a margarita on the beach, or drinking a Corona with lime, and think: 'I want that life.'

Wasn’t there a lot of exploitation of doctors in early tobacco ads?
Ads from the early-50s, with testimonies from doctors saying cigarettes were good for your health, good for your throat. It was incredible, really. There were early Marlboro ads with a picture of a little kid saying, "Mom, smoke your Marlboro before you scold me." They were using all these devices that seem so wrong. These stopped in the late-50s, when the negative health effects of cigarettes became well known.

A Grolsch advert from 1984 and a Sun Country advert from 1985

Has advertising changed a lot, or is it still exploiting people, albeit in different ways?
I don’t think it's changed that much. They still know what buttons to push, whether it's a Prada dress or Coca-Cola.

What are you excited about for the future of advertising and marketing?
I'm fascinated to see what’s going to happen with marijuana. Now it’s legal, there’s a huge market. in LA, there’s all kinds of billboards, advertising dispensaries. That’s going to be really interesting.

20th Century Alcohol & Tobacco Ads is available now via Taschen.

@dhillierwrites

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

Everything you need to know about the world this morning, curated by VICE.

US News

Nancy Pelosi Delivers Eight-Hour 'DACA-Buster' on House Floor
The House Minority Leader apparently broke a record by talking nonstop for eight hours and seven minutes in support of immigrants brought to the US illegally as children. Pelosi said she could not vote for a government spending bill if it did not address the fate of DREAMers in a speech dubbed the “DACA-Buster” on social media.—The New York Times

Jeanette Manfra, cybersecurity chief at the Department of Homeland Security, revealed Russian government operatives “successfully penetrated” some US voter registration databases during the 2016 election. Manfra said “an exceptionally small number” of the 21 states subject to hacking attempts were compromised. No US voters appeared to have been removed from the rolls.—NBC News

The US military carried out air strikes against government-affiliated forces in Syria, killing roughly 100 fighters loyal to President Bashar al Assad. Describing the strikes as a counterattack, the US military said around 500 fighters had begun attacking a base occupied by US personnel and their allies, the Syrian Democratic Force (SDF), near Deir Ezzour.—The Washington Post

White House Apparently Knew About Rob Porter Abuse Allegations
Senior Trump staffers were aware of alleged domestic abuse by White House aide Rob Porter for “months,” according to anonymous sources. Porter stepped down on Wednesday after refuting allegations of physical abuse made by two ex-wives. Sources said the chief of staff, John Kelly, knew in the fall of 2017 that Porter had not been able to get security clearance because of the allegations, but continued to back him wholeheartedly.—CNN

International News

North Korea Holds Military Parade
Kim Jong-un’s government put on the display in Pyongyang Thursday, a day before the 2018 Winter Olympics kick off in South Korea. Around 13,000 soldiers reportedly took part in the parade in Kim Il Sung square. Meanwhile, North Korea’s foreign ministry revealed it had “no intention” of meeting Vice President Mike Pence or any US officials in South Korea during the games.—CNN

International Court Considers Claim Against Duterte
The International Criminal Court was reviewing a complaint raised by a lawyer against Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte and nearly a dozen other government officials accused of sanctioning extra-judicial killings. The legal filing claimed they were responsible for thousands of deaths in the country’s “war on drugs.” Duterte’s spokesman called it “a waste of the court’s time and resources.”—Reuters

Australian PM to Apologize to Sexual Abuse Victims
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was slated to deliver a formal apology to the survivors of child sex abuse in care homes and other Australian institutions later this year. “We owe it to survivors not to waste this moment,” he said. Following a royal commission report, the government was working on compensating victims for their suffering.—The Guardian

Bermuda Revokes Same-Sex Marriage Law
The governor of the British territory approved a bill scrapping previously-passed legislation allowing gay marriage. The new measure introduces “domestic partnerships” as an alternative. The Human Rights Campaign Global said Bermuda was “the first national territory in the world to repeal marriage equality.”—AP

Everything Else

Richard Pryor’s Widow Says He Had Sex with Marlon Brando
The comedian’s widow, Jennifer Lee Pryor, said Quincy Jones’s claim that Pryor had a sexual relationship with Brando was true. “It was the 70s!” she said. “If you did enough cocaine, you’d fuck a radiator and send it flowers in the morning.”—The Guardian

Internet Rights Pioneer Dies at 70
John Perry Barlow, who helped start and lead digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation and was a onetime Grateful Dead lyricist, has died. “He’s the one that came up with the metaphor of the electronic frontier,” said EFF co-founder Mitch Kapor.—Ars Technica

Kate Upton Accuses Guess Co-Founder of Sexual Harassment
The model said Paul Marciano “forcibly grabbed my breasts” on a lingerie shoot. Upton also said he tried to kiss her face and neck after grabbing the back of her head. Marciano called the allegations “preposterous” and "absolutely false."—TIME

Stephen Malkmus Releases New Music, Tour Dates
The former Pavement star just dropped “Middle America,” the first new Stephen Malkmus & the Jicks released in four years. Though there's no word on a new album yet, the band announced they'll begin touring the US in June.—Noisey

Scott Pruitt Says Global Warming Might Actually Be Good
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency said he didn't think rising temperatures were cause for alarm. Pruitt told Las Vegas’s KSNV: “We know that humans have most flourished during times of, what, warming trends?”—VICE

Make sure to check out the latest episode of VICE's daily podcast. Today we explore the relationship between gaming and Buddhism through the lens of a few monks in Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

When Ender Wiggin was banned from Twitter last December, it wasn’t because he was a far-right troll or Nazi sympathizer. In fact, Wiggin had an army of pizzagaters harassing him all hours of the day, insisting he kill himself right up until the moment his account was disabled on December 14.

That’s because Ender—aka @enderphile—is the pseudonym of a “non-offending” or “anti-contact” pedophile: someone who is attracted to children, but claims to be against adult-child sex and child pornography. Inside that community, he’s known as the unofficial leader, and claims he’s been using social media to reduce the stigma associated with pedophilia, showing other pedophiles they can live lives without offending.

Except in the case of accusations flying around a certain failed Alabama senator, pedophiles are a natural boogeyman for the far-right, and a social media war between the two groups has been going on a long time. It’s created an insular online community of two extreme viewpoints that desperately try to get the other permanently banned.

“Twitter has permitted these pedophiles to exist and operate on their platform, advocating for the normalization of pedophilia,” says Grant J. Kidney, a self-described nationalist and pizzagate conspiracist “running for congress in 2020 on a pro-MAGA platform.” He campaigned for months to get Ender removed since, he says, pedophilia isn’t something to be championed—it’s an illness.

“These people, they’re not left, they’re not right. They’re sick people.”

Despite the ban, Ender was able to make a new account after weeks of being automatically removed—something he announced to the world in a January 31 thread, writing “It’s me, The Real Ender™, and I’m back on Twitter,” before launching into an attack on his main enemies, and closing with the fact that he’s “ready to take some names and kick some asses.” His bravado was short lived though, as his account was suspended again Wednesday. Ender and others who support him believe that these back and forth bans are because Twitter hasn’t decided on how to deal with pedophiles, and instead simply remove them when enough users send in reports, something that’s never in short supply.

To a mostly unsympathetic audience, Ender and his supporters claim what they’re doing actually makes the world safer for children, and some experts have agreed with him. Described as a leading researcher on pedophilia, Dr. James Cantor’s decades-long investigation on the subject is credited as shifting the perception of pedophilia from a disorder triggered by childhood trauma or abuse, to a biological predisposition like a sexual orientation, and he believes that Ender’s activism is vital.

“Without somebody like Ender providing that kind of image, the only kinds of images that these other pedophiles see are the ones who commit offenses,” Cantor told VICE. “That doesn’t help anybody. If anything, it’s making it worse.”

The fight between non-offending pedophiles and those who think it’s disgusting they’re allowed on social media at all has already played out in small skirmishes on sites like Reddit, Tumblr, and YouTube. By far though, the primary battleground has been Twitter, a site expressly designed to allow just about anyone to say just about anything to just about anyone else, and that’s forcing the site to make some tough choices on whether they should protect the free speech of a bunch of people that maybe no one wants to hear.

There’s at least one group that has come to the pedophiles’ defence, and one of the main voices in that group has been Dr. Cantor. He, along with “clinical and forensic psychologists, sexologists, sociologists, child protection workers, journalists, writers, and digital rights advocates,” published a joint letter in response to Ender and other non-offending pedophiles’ removal.

In their letter, Cantor and his group argue that banning Ender was a “knee-jerk response to uninformed public pressure,” and that removing pedophiles from social media will have the opposite result of what they intend. “Rather than reducing the incidence of child sexual abuse,” Cantor’s group wrote, “it increases the risk that some pedophiles will be unable to obtain the peer or professional support that they may need in order to avoid offending behavior.”

Though few agree with him now, this is a message Ender hopes will catch on. In his tweets, blogs, and interviews, he’s tried to argue that pedophiles aren’t inherently monsters, and that we need to destigmatize pedophilia to help both pedophiles, as well as the children who might be at risk. While most child sexual abusers aren’t pedophiles, Ender argues that many of the pedophiles who do abuse can be helped before they act. Dr. Cantor, along with the letter’s other signatories, also believe preventative therapy is the best way to protect children.

“The day before a pedophile gives in to his sexual interests in children, he was a pedophile struggling with his sexual interests in children,” Cantor explained, “and that is the day we failed him.”

Other organizations have started to tackle the problem of child sex abuse in a similar way. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a UK child protection charity “dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse” by working with sexual offenders, has set up a weekly program where volunteers join a pedophile chatboard to offer professional support. As well, Project Dunkelfeld—a German “Prevention Network”—offers anonymous counseling to pedophiles that feel they’re in risk of offending, though is only accessible to residents of Germany.

It’s this kind of strategy that Cantor and Ender think will be the most successful, but they still don’t think it’s enough.

“Even though I can tell the science, and I can guide people to make a rational decision, I cannot tell the story of what it’s like to live with pedophilia,” he told VICE. In Dr. Cantor’s view, the only way to mitigate child abuse from pedophiles is to try to understand them, give them a place to speak about their attractions before they’re overwhelmed by them, and destigmatize the condition. “Ender provided one of the very few and very important ways to understand what is actually going on with pedophiles in order to keep the non-offending pedophiles, non-offending,” he said.

And Ender believes the best way to do that, is through social media.

“The current misconception is that every pedophile is a child molester, and if they’re not, it’s just a matter of time,” Ender told VICE. “It’s important to show the world that that’s not the case.”

Of course, not everyone agrees with them. Signy Arnason, associate executive director of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and Cybertip, is one of those people. Her organization was built specifically to fight online child exploitation, and she argues you don’t help kids by letting pedophiles onto their sites. Sure it’s important to manage pedophilia and show people struggling with their attractions that they don’t have to offend, but Twitter, Arnason said, isn’t the place for it.

“At the end of the day you’re not curing this,” Arnason told VICE. “You’re really just risk-managing these things, but I wouldn’t risk-manage it on social platforms where children are all over the place. That’s just not the way to do it.”

Though activism by non-offending pedophiles doesn’t technically break Twitter’s Terms of Use, it is a fine line.

Even the fact that Ender and other pedophiles aren’t really breaking any laws doesn’t make it OK with Arnason. Like Kidney, Arnason argued that these platforms could, and should, get rid of self-admitted pedophiles. To Arnason, it goes beyond whether it’s legal or not, it’s about common sense.

“Looking at this within the narrow context of the laws is too limited in relation to the harm we know occurs with this population,” Arnason said. “I wouldn’t focus on the laws, I’d focus on whether it violates the Terms of Use.”

Though activism by non-offending pedophiles doesn’t technically break Twitter’s Terms of Use, it is a fine line. Following their letter, the site did respond to Dr. Cantor and the other authors, but solely to set up times for future talks; Twitter gave no specifics on whether non-offending pedophiles were in breach of their terms, and didn’t explain whether Ender has been allowed to return because of a change in policy, or whether it was simply a mistake. Meanwhile, in conversation with VICE, representatives from Twitter declined to talk about specific accounts, and instead pointed towards their Child sexual exploitation policy to outline how they deal with those that break their Terms of Service.

That policy forbids content “distributing or promoting child sexual exploitation,” which is general enough to give ammunition to both camps. While online exploitation can be thought of as illegal images or videos depicting children, “grooming”—where predators build emotional connections to children for the purpose of sexual abuse—also falls under the definition. Many accounts in the non-offending Twitter community use cartoon characters—sometimes cartoon children—as their profile pictures, which their detractors view as an attempt to lure kids.

Still, other clinicians and researchers have repeatedly come to the defense of non-offending pedophiles. One, Dr. Sarah Goode—a sociologist and CEO of StopSO, the Specialist Treatment Organisation for the Prevention of Sexual Offending—even tweeted after Ender’s removal: “If your aim is to prevent child sexual abuse, then encourage paedophiles to stay law-abiding; don't persecute non-offending paedophiles.”

Goode and Cantor are some of Ender’s strongest non-pedophile supporters, but that isn’t saying much given most of the world hates him. To prevent threats from turning into attacks, Ender limits most of his online interaction to anonymous blog readers and his far-right opponents, but the event that caused him to be removed from Twitter in the first place changed all that. This is the event that prompted Cantor’s letter, and the one forcing Twitter to make some tough decisions on what to do about pedophiles on their site.

On December 12, British tabloid The Sun published a piece exposing Twitter for “letting pedophiles openly promote their perversions—because it says discussing the sick fantasies is not illegal.” The story named several accounts describing themselves as non-offending, and brought them to MPs, who unsurprisingly said that “Twitter must suspend the accounts.”

Two days after The Sun article, many of those same non-offending pedophiles logged on to Twitter to find their accounts had been suspended for “suspicious behaviour,” a technique used to remove bots, instead of someone who’s broken a rule. The only way you can unlock an account suspended for suspicious behaviour, though, is to give up your phone number.

Ender was one of the few who chose to give a phone number in order to regain access but, immediately after he did, he was notified his account was permanently restricted. Then, nearly a month after the suspension, Ender got a notice from the Greater Manchester Police, informing him that his IP address will be forwarded to them due to a tweet he allegedly made, and because his account has “numerous messages of a disturbing nature around [his] sexual beliefs and minors.”

Despite his full cooperation with authorities, Ender’s account was still suspended, which caught Dr. Cantor’s attention. While understanding this is a tough situation for Twitter and other sites to deal with, Dr. Cantor claims that all the actions against Ender are backwards. According to him, pushing pedophiles off Twitter and other social media sites just buries the problem, “pushing it to where we can’t watch what’s going on.”

It’s an issue that every platform is tackling differently. Tumblr does effectively nothing to its non-offending community as long as what they post remains within the bounds of legality, though there is still infighting. Battles within Tumblr haven’t broken outside of the communities involved, but there are various “anti-MAP” (Minor Attracted Person) accounts that debate non-offending pedophiles in similar ways to Twitter. “Reblog this If you hate MAPs but you’re pro recovery for ‘MAP’ minors,” reads one post from an anti-MAP account, “and hope they get the help they need and separate themselves from these pedophiles who have convinced them they have no choice.”

At the same time, Reddit did shut down a non-contact pedophile forum, /r/pedofriends, after users broke the terms of service by using “highly troubling usernames,” trying to suggest sex between adults and children isn’t truly damaging, and talking about their real-life relationships with children. At the same time, it continues to host numerous AMAs from pedophiles, where posts receive mostly positive responses. Some have hundreds of comments and upvotes, and while there are definitely those who can’t believe Reddit allows pedophiles to freely talk about their sexual attraction to children, it hasn’t been enough to force Reddit to make a stand.

Arnason admits it can be useful to teach pedophiles they don’t have to hurt children, but says there are better places than social media to do that. “If you are really committed to trying to demonstrate there are people with a sexual interest in children that don’t offend against those kids,” Arnason told VICE, “there are other ways in which the community can be communicating with one another that doesn’t provide exposure and access to children.”

As an alternative, some experts point to the site VirPed, a forum made for non-offending pedophiles to get support from one another. Arnason also mentions Stop It Now!, an organization founded by a survivor of childhood sexual abuse that aims to prevent the victimization of children by, in part, reaching out and offering resources to pedophiles.

Ender, a past moderator of VirPed, doesn’t believe those sites are as effective as social media. He claims that while insular sites are important, they don’t serve to destigmatize pedophilia as a condition, while social media does.

“As much as we want to do it on VirPed,” he said, “nobody else is going to hear it.”

For now though, those efforts seemingly won’t happen on Twitter. Ender claims that any attempt to make another account—under any name—was initially blocked following his ban, but thought they had reconsidered their stance after he was able to log back on. Following his most recent ban, he's less optimistic.

Until Twitter directly addresses how they’re going to deal with users like Ender, non-offending pedophiles exist in the same state. It’s a kind of limbo, where they’re able to speak about their attractions to children publicly, but without knowing for how long. It’s also the case for pedophiles on all other social media platforms, where the debate on whether they should be allowed to talk about their attractions is still going strong, though largely unnoticed.

Follow Jackson Weaver on Twitter.

Comedian John Mulaney has this great bit in his stand-up routine about the wonderful rush that accompanies abandoning a commitment: “In terms of instant relief, canceling plans is like heroin.” And he’s right! What feels better than wiggling out of a looming obligation when you’re not in the mood to follow through?

And thanks to the various, impersonal ways we communicate, it’s never been easier to flake out. The New York Times says we’re in the golden age of bailing: “Technology makes it all so easy,” David Brooks wrote. “You just pull out your phone and bailing on a rendezvous is as easy as canceling an Uber driver.”

While some people are bold enough to dash off a text saying, “Actually, I can’t make it,” many of us aren’t as comfortable being so direct. In an effort to save face, we resort to making up excuses when we back out of plans.

Sometimes the lies we tell are merely an exaggeration––an unwillingness to apply a fresh coat of mascara before heading out is cited as “exhaustion” via text. Sometimes we try to pack in plenty of gruesome medical details in an effort to disgust our way out of plans: “Sorry I can’t make your baby shower. My anus feels like it’s being attacked by an army of fire ants!” Or sometimes our lies are so cartoonishly outlandish that it haunts (and amuses!) us for many years to come.

We asked friends and co-workers about the pettiest/biggest fibs they told to bail on plans. Here’s what they said.

“Have to SSS (shit, shower, shave).” - Dom, 35

“Lied about having mono for years.” - Penny, 23

“I'm doing Hurricane Katrina relief work.” - Rachael, 33

“Cousin's bar mitzvah; faked stomach virus.” - Rebecca, 39

“Faked fainting to leave work early.” - Beth, 32

“Cut my hand. I’m bleeding EVERYWHERE.” - Bridgett, 32

“I'm expecting an important Amazon delivery.” - Yvonne, 35

“Used boyfriend’s anxiety as an excuse.” - Heather, 26

“Hey, sorry! My mom said no.” - Vartika, 25

“Ate bad fish and got poisoned.” - Annie, 30

“The word ‘diarrhea’ makes people uncomfortable.” - Ellie, 34

"Just never spoke to them again." - James, 23

“I have to go to Utah.” - Howie, 40

Illustrations by Brandon Celi

“ Can’t go, dog puked on shoes.” - Riley, 30

“Can’t come. I have pink eye.” - Oliver, 37

“I think my water broke, sorry .” - Cheri, 32

“I accidentally washed all my bras.” - Lauren, 34

“I’ve fabricated a hot Tinder date.” - Julie, 32

“Sorry, didn’t see your text messages.” - Sam, 33

“Didn’t write plans in my calendar.” - Sharon, 31

“I have a UTI. I’m sorry!” - Jenn, 36

“Always tell ‘em I have migraines.” - Violet, 39

“Love to, but I’m flat broke.” - Eric, 31

“I have to wash my hair.” - Priya, 29

“Have to work early tomorrow morning.” - James, 40

“Damn, I have too much homework.” - Haley, 22

“Shit, I can’t find a babysitter.” - Marc, 34

“Can’t. Have doctor's appointment scheduled then.” - Amelia, 32

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Anna Goldfarb on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

On Thursday, Sony released the teaser for Venom, the upcoming origin movie based on the titular space goop-turned-Spiderman foe. The clip gives us our first look at Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock, the journalist who becomes the vigilante anti-hero, but the teaser is missing one major thing—Venom himself.

The minute-and-a-half-long teaser gives us a lot of explosions and disconnected action shots, capped off with a shot of Brock waking up in an MRI machine after the unseen accident that bonded him with a space symbiote and turned him into Venom.

"Everyone's got their thing—maybe it's a break-up, a death, an accident," Hardy says in the trailer's narration. "Whatever it is, you used to be on thing. Now, you're something else. We all have our own problems, our own issues, our own demons."

The teaser trailer is full of emo narration about Brock's "demons," but sorely lacking the actual demon himself. The closest the clip comes to actually giving us a look at Venom is a quick shot of the black symbiote writhing in a container and, later, a split-second of the symbiote creeping up Brock's neck as he struggles in the MRI. The teaser ends with some wisps of smoke that briefly form the distinctive eyes and mouth of Venom before disappearing into the darkness.

This is only a teaser trailer, of course, and we'll probably get to see Venom in all his freaky-tongued glory when the full trailer eventually drops. Until then, at least we have enough footage of Hardy to prove he's going to make a better Brock than Topher Grace.

Venom was directed by Ruben Fleischer, the guy who made Zombieland, and stars Michelle WIlliams, Jenny Slate, and Woody Harrelson alongside Hardy. It's unclear whether Tom Holland's Spiderman will make an appearance—but we'll just have to wait until the film's October 5 release to know for sure.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

A little-known Manitoba MLA is has decided to check himself into sensitivity training after getting Mad Online at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and asylum seekers.

Cliff Graydon, a Progressive Conservative backbencher for the riding of Emerson—a location that includes one of the busiest border crossers for asylum seekers. In late January, Graydon responded to a tweet calling the over 40,000 people who made asylum claims in Canada “illegals” by calling refugee claimants a “drain on society.”

Graydon has since deleted the tweet but, as we all know, what you say online tends to live forever—especially if you work in the public sphere.

Photo via screenshot

There must be a lot of free time on the backbench as last week was a busy one for the MLA who also retweeted an account calling Justin Trudeau a “scumbag.” This retweet comes after, in December, Graydon was criticized for retweeting a message that read, “HOW CAN ANY WOMAN vote for that SICK/RETARDED/TRAITOR?” Like many other older right wing Canadian Twitter users, Graydon was also seemingly a fan of calling the prime minister “Turdeau” [emphasis on the turd, har har.]

The Manitoba PC party have distanced themselves from Graydon’s posting habits with Progressive Conservative caucus chair Wayne Ewasko telling the CBC the tweets were “unacceptable” and “do not reflect the views our caucus and our government.” Ewasko added that some time away from social media would probably do their MLA well. Graydon himself took to Twitter on Tuesday to apologize for his remarks saying that “all political debates must be respected.”

“This is a standard that I've not met on social media, as a result I will be taking some sensitivity training while limiting social media activity. I wish to offer my sincere and unequivocal apology for any offensive I've made,” reads his tweet.

Photo via screenshot.

This isn’t the first time a provincial politician has gotten in trouble for being Mad Online and has had their social media use restricted by their party. Embattled Albertan MLA Derek Fildebrandt was heavily criticized in 2016 for responding positively to a transphobic Facebook post criticizing Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne—he later said he didn’t fully read the post.

In response to this discretion, Fildebrandt was removed from his caucus and was forced to get social media managers before returning. He has since been removed from caucus again but that is because he was found guilty of a hit and run and killed a deer without permission on someone's land, not being Mad Online.

Follow Mack Lamoureux on Twitter.