Category Archives: Abolition Of Work

The Amherstburg Freedom Museum hosted an Emancipation Celebration at the Caboto Club, Aug. 4, 2017. The annual event recognizes the abolition of slavery in Canada in 1834. Here, Joanne Fuller checks out artwork featured in a silent auction. Dan Janisse / Windsor Star

The Greatest Freedom Show on Earth was held Friday night in Windsor as attendees clad in red and white celebrated and remembered the 183rd anniversary of emancipation in Britain and its colonies.

Honouring the abolition of slavery on Aug. 1, 1834, the local celebration of slaverys end in Canada was held at the Caboto Club.

I think if you forget your past, you no longer become a people, said David Van Dyke, vice-president of the Amherstburg Freedom Museum. Each time that this is celebrated, you go back and remember the people that came before you and the sacrifices that theyve made in order to allow you to live the life that you live today.

The Slavery Abolition Act which received royal assent in 1833 came into force in a year later, ending slavery in England and the British Empire, including Canada, the West Indies and South Africa.

Museum president Monty Logan said celebrating emancipation is one of the things that makes Canada great.

Canada got on the forefront of supporting freedom and enabling freedom for a lot of people to make Canada their home, to make a better life for themselves, he said.

Logan said that during emancipation celebrations, the entire community comes together to recognize the sacrifices of its ancestors, not only the people who were enslaved, but also the supporters that actually helped those people who were enslaved to seek freedom.

To those outside Canadas borders, emancipation held deep significance in Southwestern Ontario. After word spread that Canada was free, many people crossed the border from America on the underground railroad.

Amherstburg was one of the first communities to host annual Emancipation Day celebrations. Celebrations in Windsor began in the 1830s, known as the Greatest Freedom Show on Earth.

Emancipation used to be a big thing in Windsor, a big thing, said Barbara Porter, a museum director. I was lucky enough to be around when the big parade and the carnivals and the barbecues were going on.

She said celebrations of past years included a parade down Ouellette Avenue, a carnival at Jackson Park, beauty contests, Motown singers and speakers, including American Baptist minister and civil rights champion Martin Luther King Jr.

Justus Elliott was in attendance as a winner of the Mac Simpson Award. The award, provided by the Amherstburg Freedom Museum, is given out annually to a graduating high school student in honour of museum founderMelvin Mac Simpson.

In her winning essay, Elliott talked about her volunteer work and her family heritage.

I talked about how my family was part of the Underground Railroad and how its basically changed me as a person today, Elliott said.

Justuss father, Windsors Ward 2 Coun. John Elliott, said he remembers going to emancipation celebrations at Jackson Park as a kid.

They had the big parades, all the folks from the U.S. would come over and be part of the celebration; a week-and-a-half, two-week celebration, Elliott said. It was magnificent. You might call it one of the greatest shows on earth.

He said todays celebrations are a continuation of the past.

The spirit is still here.

Tharris@postmedia.com

See more here:

'The spirit is still here' as emancipation celebrated in Windsor 183 years later - Windsor Star

MANILA - The possible abolition of a government agency tasked with recovering the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family will not affect its planned planned sale, a finance official said Thursday.

At least 3 jewelry collections of former first lady Imelda Marcos were valued at P1 billion at a re-appraisal by auction houses Christies and Sotheby's last February.

The jewels will be placed on the auction block once legal cases are resolved, finance undersecretary Grace Karen Singson said.

"I don't understand why everyone is panicking the cases are always handled by the OSG (Office of the Solicitor General), [while] the disposition must always be approved by DOF, so wala naman nagbago (nothing has changed)," she said.

Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno said last week that he favored the abolition of the Presidential Commission on Good Government, saying it was no longer necessary.

Former President Benigno Aquino, whose mother, former president Corazon Aquino, constituted the PCGG, said on Tuesday that the agency's work was not done yet.

Read the rest here:

Marcos jewels sale to push through even if PCGG is abolished - ABS-CBN News

The founders of Osawatomie were peaceful abolitionists who sought to ensure that Kansas would enter the Union as a free state by simply obeying the dictates of the law.

In the case of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, they sought to ensure that so many abolitionist settlers emigrated to Kansas Territory that they would be able to out vote the proslavery advocates and ensure that Kansas would enter the Union as a free state.

Kansas Territory was only the first western territory that their plan was to be tried in, for they planned to replicate this strategy and tactic in every territory of the West.

Why? The abolitionists who made up the New England Emigrant Aid Society and other abolitionist organizations understood that southern agriculture was based on the plantation system, which exhausted soil after a time, and planters simply moved west to find more fertile fields.

Southern plantation farmers had reached Missouri and the Mississippi, and on into Texas, and the abolitionist plan was to block the expansion of slavery where it stood, utilizing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854s clause of Popular Sovereignty, or a vote of the citizens of new territories to determine the status of slavery in the new territories.

The abolitionists planned to flood the new territories of the West with abolitionist and free-soil settlers who would vote to make each territory of the West enter the Union as a free state and build a wall of free states in which slavery would not be legal.

The effect of erecting this legal wall against slavery would ensure that the southern plantation style of agriculture would become unprofitable, and the economic reason for owning slaves, to work on plantations, would become moot, and southerners would end slavery on their own as the profit would be lost in owning slaves.

This plan was actually quite legal, and the peaceful abolitionists forbade any violence against proslavery advocates save violence done in strict self-defense. The peaceful abolitionists were determined to be the law-abiding citizens in the political fray over slavery in Kansas Territory and in other territories of the West. They believed that they had an effective, moderate peaceful means of ensuring the abolition of slavery in the United States.

The New England Emigrant Aid Society was one of the abolitionist organizations that set out to implement this peaceful plan to abolish slavery and sent agents to Kansas Territory to establish abolitionist communities in Kansas Territory.

The first community that the New England Emigrant Aid Society founded in Kansas Territory was Lawrence. The second was Grasshopper Falls, now Valley Falls, and the third was Osawatomie.

The peaceful abolitionists carved these communities out of the Kansas wilderness to facilitate Kansas Territories entrance into the union as a free state in a peaceful manner, but alas, when proslavery extremists and extremist abolitionists settled in Kansas Territory, they had no intention of being peaceful, and any hope of a peaceful resolution of the slavery issue in Kansas and the nation was dashed during the Bleeding Kansas era of United States History.

Grady Atwater is site administrator of the John Brown Museum and State Historic Site.

See the original post here:

Peaceful abolitionists and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 - Miami County Republic

Removal of the contributions for victims of domestic violence ultimately a matter for the Minister. Photograph: iStock

A decision on whether to abolish financial contributions to civil legal aid for victims of domestic violence will be made by the end of the year, Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan has said.

Speaking at the launch of the Free Legal Advice Centres (Flac) annual report, Mr Flanagan noted the organisation, along with others, had lobbied for the abolition of the 130 contribution for domestic violence victims.

I too am in support of it. I am keen to ensure that if there are difficulties, they can be dealt with in a way that is most satisfactory, he said.

He said he had received a submission from the Legal Aid Board, which runs the civil legal aid scheme, recommending a number of scheme changes, including the waiving of fees for vulnerable applicants.

These proposals are currently under review and are being assessed within my department, he said.

He said it was open to the board to waive contributions in certain circumstances and last year 40,000 was waived in respect of domestic violence.

Speaking to The Irish Times, John McDaid, chief executive of the Legal Aid Board, who also attended the Flac report launch, said the removal of the contributions for victims of domestic violence was ultimately a matter for the Minister.

Our contributions regime is determined by ministerial regulation so it is not that we in the Legal Aid Board set the rules in terms of eligibility and contributions; they are set by the Minister, he said.

The board had made a comprehensive submission to the Minister on the matter, he said. He did not believe, if the need for a contribution was removed, there would be an increase in applications for legal aid in domestic violence situations.

There is no issue that we are going to be flooded with them if we remove the contribution, he said.

Eilis Barry, chief executive of Flac, highlighted the work of the charity, which runs a network of free legal advice clinics and a phone information line.

She also said pressures on the Legal Aid Board had increased, with delays in some areas of six to nine months.

She said Flac was pleased the board had postponed a decision to restrict referrals to its family law private practitioners scheme, used by people who have a court date and cannot wait for an appointment with a legal aid board centre. She also said the financial contribution for domestic violence victims should be dropped so there is no financial barrier to getting legal protection in a domestic violence situation. She said she was aware some people had sought money from St Vincent de Paul to cover the 130 contribution required by the board.

Last year, more than 25,700 people got free legal information or advice from the charity. Of these, almost 12,230 received information via Flacs phone line and more than 13,480 were dealt with by volunteer lawyers at legal advice centres in 67 locations around the country.

See more here:

Flanagan 'supports' abolition of legal fee for domestic violence victims - Irish Times

By Steven White By Steven White August 1 at 5:00 AM

President Trump's tweeted transgender military ban on July 26 drew immediate criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, who were caught unaware by the decision. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Last week, President Trump announced via Twitter that, after consultation with my Generals and military experts, the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. His reasoning for this decision was that the military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.

Trumps announcement was met with surprise and outrage by many. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 58percent of Americans support allowing transgender soldiers to serve in the military, while 27percent actively oppose it. While the extent to which this policy declaration will actually be implemented remains in question, LGBT rights organizations are preparing to challenge it in court if necessary.

It is especially striking that Trumps announcement came on the anniversary of President Harry S. Trumans landmark July 26, 1948, executive order that led to the desegregation of the armed forces. While the outcomes could not be more different, the Truman era effort to integrate the military still has important lessons for the militarys connection to the inclusion of marginalized groups today.

During World War II, civil rights activists frequently linked the fight against Nazi Germany to the fight against Jim Crow racism. For labor and civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph, the fight against segregation in the armed forces became a special priority. Because of the issues emotional resonance, he argued that it was a fight that could serve as a means to eradicate Jim Crow widely. Despite pressure, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was never convinced to integrate the military during the war itself. Truman, however, finally moved to integrate the armed forces in 1948.

Military integration was opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans at the time. A 1948 poll found that only 26 percent of Americans favored having Negro and white troops throughout the U.S. Armed Services live and work together. Not even white veterans supported the move, despite having recently returned from fighting against Nazism. This widespread opposition led activists to work around Congress by focusing on the possibility of unilateral executive action.

[The 4 key things you need to know about Trumps proposed ban on transgender military service]

The debate surrounding Trumans order previews arguments made by opponents of greater inclusiveness in the military today. Three months before its release, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal and National Urban League leader Lester Granger organized a National Defense Conference on Negro Affairs in response to the pressure of Randolph and other activists. Army Secretary Kenneth Royall told those in attendance that the Army could not experiment nor could it be used to promote or oppose any cause. He went on to say that while he fully recognize[d] not only the propriety but the necessity for the Negro race to insist on the abolition of segregation, military integration was ultimately a question of timing.

When Royall later spoke before a hearing held by Trumans Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, he told them that the Army was not meant to be an instrument for social evolution, by which he meant it did not want racial integration. He justified segregation by raising concerns about the morale of white troops, especially Southern ones. Many Army volunteers are white Southerners, he said, and it is a well-known fact that close personal association with Negroes is distasteful to a large percentage of Southern whites.

Similar arguments have been made for decades by opponents of LGBT rights in the military. The U.S. armed forces arent some social experiment, then-Sen. Chuck Hagel said in 1999 when asked about repealing the dont ask, dont tell (DADT) policy. Just before DADT repeal legislation was passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama in 2010, former Marine Corps Lt. Col. Oliver North argued that soldiers deserve better than to be treated like lab rats in Mr. Obamas radical social experiment.

Although DADT repeal was a major step for LGBT rights, the extent to which it would include transgender rights remained in question for several years. It was not until June 2016 that Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter announced that transgender soldiers would be allowed to serve openly in the military. Last month, current Defense Secretary Jim Mattis delayed the Obama administrations plan, arguing that the Pentagon needed more time to study the issue. Within a month, however, Trump seemingly overruled Mattis. Although Trumps tweet stated that he had consulted with [his] Generals and military experts, reporting indicates that the president did not consult with Mattis, who was only informed of his decision after the announcement.

As Trumps announcement demonstrates, the military remains at the center of debates about the inclusion of marginalized groups in American society. Both Truman and Trump were going against majority opinion when they declared a change in military policy that pertained to a marginalized group.

The difference, however, is that Truman sought greater inclusion. Trump seeks the opposite.

Steven White will be an assistant professor of political science at Syracuse University starting this fall. He is working on a manuscript about World War II and American racial politics. Follow him on Twitter @notstevenwhite.

Read the original post:

Most Americans opposed integrating the military in 1948. Most Americans support transgender military service today. - Washington Post

In this current moment, abolition is more important than ever. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

What does it look like to build a city, state or nation invested in communities thriving rather than their death and destruction? To ask this question is the first act of an abolitionist.

I am an abolitionist. What does this mean? Abolitionist resistance and resilience draws from a legacy of black led anti-colonial struggle in the United States and throughout the Americas including places like Haiti, the first black republic founded on the principles of anti-colonialism and black liberation.

Black people and our allies fought for black liberation against slave societies and a slavery-based economy and in some cases, we won. Abolition sought to end slavery and white supremacy to their very core and liberate black people as stolen people exploited on occupied lands.

However, abolition has yet to fully achieve a society and a world where black folks and our lives are recognized with equal value and where institutions have repaired the harm caused on our people.

The backlash to the abolition movement transformed slavery and its institutions. And, while we have seen some semblance of emancipation, we still live with the vestiges of slavery everyday in this country.

The remnants of slavery are visible in the militarization of police, the expansion of the prison industrial complex, rampant Immigration and Custom Enforcement (Ice) raids and the Muslim travel ban in place in America today. They are reflected in the US invasions, occupation and war against communities of color domestically and around the world. If a state is the source of 36% of all military expenditures globally, then it is resisting abolition. And with the 45th president, this number is on the rise.

In this current moment, abolition is more important than ever.

The United States has more than 20% of the worlds prison population with only 5% of the worlds population. More than half of those incarcerated in the US are black.

Incarceration rates for black women are among the highest, with black women arrested four times more than white women. And across the nation, one in 35 adults are under correctional control (included but not limited to jail, parole and probation). We know this to be true and higher in black and Latino communities.

The cost of the prison system, militarization and this society weighed down by vestiges of slavery is great. A recent study found that in the US, cost of prisons exceeds $1tn. This comes at the expense of families, children and entire communities. The same study determined that the US governments operational funds for federal and state prisons as well as local jails stands at $80bn.

On top of this lies the emotional, psychological and physical trauma associated with separation, constant policing, raids, arrests, incarceration and law enforcement killings. Black communities and other communities of color are visibly under attack in this country.

Abolition is necessary if we want to see these conditions change. We must commit to transforming these systems.

Were not just fighting against the prison industrial complex, criminalization of black people and other communities of color. We also want the right to determine how we live and build up our communities participation and conditions.

We must ask ourselves, how do we build an abolitionist framework and practice for our movements today?

Abolition pushes us to imagine. Abolition inspires us and abolition reminds us of who we can be.

Imagine a society dedicated to people and our collective well-being. What does it take to get there? What examples already exist that we can draw from?

With abolition, its necessary to destroy systems of oppression. But, its equally necessary to put at the forefront our conversations about creation. When we fight for justice, what exactly do we want for our communities?

These are the fundamental questions that Black Lives Matter and other black liberation movements push ourselves to envision everyday. The Movement For Black Lives (M4BL) did just this when it gathered hundreds of black organizers to build a multi-faceted policy platform rooted in abolition. The policies range from economic justice, political power and reparations.

An abolitionist strategy must encourage social and financial divestment from the military state and its institutions to social welfare. Our communities must demand dignified housing, satisfying jobs and proper labor conditions, our educational system must be culturally relevant, multi-lingual and teach our histories. Our value should not determined by legal records.

Abolitionists today must challenge Jeff Sessions and his revival of the War on Drugs and 1980s Reaganomics under the false pretense of fighting crime. We need to target campaigns against local, statewide and national investment in military, police and their associated structures.

Abolitionism is manifested in the LA No More Jails coalition, which works to stop the county that jails the most people in the world, Los Angeles, and the citys proposal for $3bn dollar expansion. The coalition calls for an immediate stop to jail construction in LA county and a reduction of the number of people locked up. LA No More Jails fiercely advocates that those same resources be redirected into community solutions.

The Anti-Police Terror Projects Defund OPD (Oakland Police Department) committee stands on a similar platform. Their mission, to reduce OPDs budget by 50% and reinvest money into non-police programming in the city.

According to APTPs research, OPD absorbs nearly 50% of the citys general fund. More statistics can be found here. OPD is committed to responding to the citys shameless excuse that theres no money, where do we cut? with concrete strategies that encourage community based initiatives instead of police response or engagement.

It costs $209,000 annually for New York City per inmate at Rikers Island prison. Around 89% of those incarcerated in Rikers are black or Latino. The #CLOSERikers campaign understands that the fight is not simply to close down the prison but also, reduce the number of people arrested and fix the court systems.

This coalition of diverse New York based organizations seeks to boldly reimagine the citys failed criminal justice system and focus on healing communities that Rikers has disproportionately impacted.

Abolition goes beyond borders. When our ancestors fought against slavery in the US, they also aligned themselves with movements against colonialism throughout the world, like the Haitian Revolution and other black and Indigenous movements across the Americas.

Abolition means fighting against the root causes of mass displacement and forced migration. It means taking on the US state and militarization abroad and ending US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and beyond.

Abolition calls for an end to US funding and vetting of military and police across Latin America and the Caribbean. The Justice for Berta campaign, named after Indigenous leader Berta Cceres who assassinated in 2016, comes out of long standing solidarity with Central America and the struggles of black and Indigenous peoples.

The campaigns Berta Cceres Human Rights in Honduras Act demands an end to US funding and vetting of Honduran security forces and investigations into the murders of movement organizers gone unsolved and in impunity.

Abolition means standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people and their fight for liberation. My experience in Palestine radically transformed my analysis and practice of abolition. Sharing space with our Palestinian brothers and sisters made it clear to me that our movements must look at the international ramifications of the US state and militarization abroad. We must continue to participate and support the movement calling for a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against the Israeli state and corporations that support and enable the occupation of Palestinian land.

Our movements must deeply divest from prisons, policing and militarization and demand investment in our communities, our basic needs, services from education, housing, healthcare and reparations.

Abolition centers a call for genuine freedom and places black folks and our liberation at the center because, when black people are free, we are all free.

More here:

Abolitionists still have work to do in America - The Guardian

One by one, the markers of Venezuelas democracy have been pushed aside.

First, the Supreme Court was packed with loyalists of the President, and several opposition politicians were blocked from taking their seats. Then, judges overturned laws that the President opposed, and elections for governors around the country were suddenly suspended.

Next, the court ruled in favour of dissolving the legislature entirely, a move that provoked such an outcry in Venezuela and abroad that the decision was soon reversed.

Now, President Nicolas Maduro is pushing a radical plan to consolidate his leftist movements grip over the nation: he is creating a political body with the power to rewrite the countrys constitution and reshuffle or dismantle any branch of government seen as disloyal.

The new body, called a constituent assembly, is expected to grant virtually unlimited authority to the countrys leftists.

Venezuelans are going to the polls tomorrow to weigh in on the plan. But they will not have the option of rejecting it, even though some polls show that large majorities oppose the assemblys creation. Instead, voters will be asked only to pick the assemblys delegates, choosing from a list of stalwarts of Mr Maduros political movement.

The new assembly will rule above all other governmental powers technically even the President with the kind of unchecked authority not seen since the juntas that haunted Latin American countries in decades past.

This is an existential threat to Venezuelan democracy, said David Smilde, an analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights advocacy group.

The list of delegates includes powerful members of the Presidents political movement, including Diosdado Cabello, a top politician in the ruling Socialist Party who was involved in a failed coup attempt in the 1990s, and Cilia Flores, the Presidents wife.

But the push to consolidate power also puts the country at a crossroads, one laden with risk.

As Maduro effectively steers his country toward one-party rule, he sets it on a collision course with the United States, which buys nearly half of Venezuelas oil. On Wednesday, President Donald Trumps administration froze the assets of, and forbade Americans to do business with, 13 Venezuelans close to Maduro, including his interior minister and heads of the army, police and national guard.

The administration is warning that harsher measures could follow, with strong and swift economic actions if the vote happens tomorrow, according to Trump. In a statement, he called Maduro a bad leader who dreams of becoming a dictator.

There is also the potential powder keg on Venezuelas streets. Infuriated by MrMaduros government, the opposition has mobilised more than three months of street protests that have crippled cities with general strikes, rallies and looting. More than 110 people have been killed, many in clashes between the state and armed protesters. Few know how protesters will react to newly imposed leaders.

Even the members of the new assembly themselves are a wild card. Their power will be so vast that they could possibly remove Mr Maduro from office, some analysts note, ending a presidency that has been deeply unpopular, even among many leftists.

Its a crapshoot, a Pandoras box, said Alejandro Velasco, a Venezuelan historian at New York University who studies the countrys leftist movements. You do this and you have so little control over how it plays out.

Mr Maduro contends that the government restructuring is necessary to prevent more bloodshed on the streets and save Venezuelas failing economy, which is dogged by shortages of food and medicine.

The President has refused to negotiate with street protesters, calling some of them terrorists and asserting that they are financed by outside governments trying to overthrow him. A new governing charter would give him wide-ranging tools to construct peace, he and leftists have said.

We need order, justice, Mr Maduro said during an interview with state television this month. We have only one option, a national constituent assembly.

The turmoil gripping Venezuela illustrates the sweeping declines in popularity for the Venezuelan left since the death of its standard-bearer, former president Hugo Chavez, in 2013.

It was Chavez who oversaw the last rewrite of the constitution, in 1999, which was widely backed by the voters who had propelled him to office in the belief that the countrys rule book favoured the rich.

That new constitution and rising oil prices fuelled a socialist-inspired transformation in Venezuela. It helped enable Chavez to redistribute state wealth to the poor, nationalise foreign assets and make him popular with his supporters. The constitution also left open the possibility of another constituent assembly in the future.

Now Mr Maduro has taken that option at a time when the leftists are dogged by their deepest crisis in decades. This time, Venezuelans are seeing it less as a stab at reform than as an attempt by a struggling ruling class to maintain power.

Its a last-ditch effort to secure his base, Mr Velasco said. Hes doing it at a moment of weakness.

Under the rules of the vote, the constituent assembly would take the reins of the country within 72 hours of being officially certified, though it is unclear to most people what would happen after that.

Some politicians have suggested that governorships and mayors be replaced with communal councils. Top members of Mr Maduros party have identified Luisa Ortega, the attorney general, who has criticisedMr Maduros crackdown on protesters, as someone to be immediately dismissed.

But many fear that a likely first step will be the abolition of the countrys legislature, a tactic first used by Chavez when rewriting the constitution in 1999.

Leftists did not control the legislature then, and the same is true today. For more than a year, courts close to MrMaduro have chipped away at the powers of opposition lawmakers there, overturning laws likea measure to release political prisoners and stripping themof budgetary oversight.

Organisers of a symbolic vote against the measure this month said more than 7 million ballots had been cast, with 98 percent backing the opposition.

Juan Guaido, an opposition politician, fears that the constituent assembly will dismantle his chamber, effectively liquidating any political power held by Mr Maduros rivals.

If there was anything left of Venezuelas battered democracy, it was the powers that were legitimately elected by the people, like the National Assembly, he said. The vote would create a totalitarian and repressive dictatorship.

Still, some say the opposition has failed to offer clear alternatives to Mr Maduro. Eva Golinger, an American lawyer who was a confidante of Chavezs, said rivals of the leftists had focused too heavily on wresting power from the President, something that could risk a wider civil conflict.

They only rally around regime change, said MsGolinger, who opposes how MrMaduro has gone about the constitutional rewrite.

The constituent assembly would also be able to take on one piece of work left unfinished by Chavez: creating a more socialist constitution.

Chavez later tried to amend his 1999 document with changes that he argued would speed the course of his populist revolution. But the additional measures were narrowly defeated when they were taken to voters in 2007.

Man suffers violent beating from police in Venezuela

Mr Maduro has indicated that he intends to pick up where Chavez left off. He has suggested a nine-point outline that includes increasing public spending for education and health care, giving socialist organisations increased governing abilities and taking unspecified measures to prevent foreign meddling in Venezuela.

Analysts also expect that the new constitution could dig deeper into the economic policy favoured by the President, which many economists blame for exacerbating the countrys economic crisis.

With much of the opposition expected to boycott the vote, it was mainly Venezuelans loyal to Maduros party who were eager to head to the polls tomorrow.

Maria Elena Perez, 54, a leftist activist in Caracas, the capital, said it was time for a new rule book.

The current constitution is weak, and theres a lot that needs to be fixed, she said.

In the week before the vote, potential delegates were making their pitches on Venezuelan airwaves.

In one video, Ysmael Modoy, a candidate from the western state of Portuguesa, urged voters to defend Chavezs legacy and promised a new constitution that better battled corruption.

Some sought a lighthearted tone. Antonio Leon, a candidate who goes by the nickname the Mask, entered his commercial dancing and singing while crossing an empty street. He didnt address any changes to the constitution, but promised voters that he would make it easier to get government rations.

Remember: you are love, you are life, he said before returning to his dance.

New York Times

Go here to read the rest:

Venezuela crisis: Citizens fear vote means end of democracy as Maduro tightens grip on power - The Independent

Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III says the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) should have achieved its objective after existing for 30 years

Published 6:00 PM, July 29, 2017

Updated 6:00 PM, July 29, 2017

'REVISITING' PCGG. Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III is open to reviewing the existence of the Presidential Commission on Good Government. File photo

MANILA, Philippines Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III is open to "revisiting" the role of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), the agency tasked to hunt the ill-gotten wealth of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos and his family.

Pimentel, whose father was a staunch fighter of Marcos and Martial Law, said the PCGG should have achieved its objective after existing for 30 years

The agency was established by former president Corazon Aquino in 1986 after Marcos was overthrown. (READ: What you should know about the agency hunting Marcos' ill-gotten wealth)

"PCGG is a single function agency. I am open to revisiting the reason for its continued existence. Mga 30 years na po 'yang single objective niya. Dapat by this time, achieved na 'yan (Its single objective has been going on for 30 years. It should have been achieved by this time)," Pimentel told repoters in a text message.

"It makes one wonder, bakit 'di pa tapos? So puwede na ipasa 'yan sa ibang agency na hindi single function agency. The assumption is nasa tail-end na rin ang PCGG sa work nito after 30 years," Pimentel added. (Why is it not yet achieved? We can pass it to an agency that has no single function. The assumption is that the PCGG should be at the tail end of tis work after 30 years.)

Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno earlier said that the PCGG can already be abolished as it is not productive. The PCGG, however, attributed the delays to the "slow grind of the justice system, coupled by dilatory tactics employed by the defendants," specifically the Marcoses.

Malacaang has said that the Office of the Solicitor General could take on the functions of the agency. House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez has filed a bill seeking to put the PCGG under the OSG presently headed by Solicitor Jose Calida, a known Marcos supporter. (READ: In charge of recovering ill-gotten wealth? But Calida is pro-Marcos)

'We want to see accountability'

Senator Francis Escudero, for his part, called for a full inventory of all the assets the agency has sequestered before deciding on the PCGG's fate.

It would be too much to bear to find out that recovered assets pilloried from the state is squandered the same by the agency tasked to run after it. We want to see accountability, as with any other government institutions," Escudero said in a statement.

"If there is failure to protect and preserve sequestered assets, then abolition this time may lead to the unintended consequence of hiding misdeeds committed by the agency in the past," said Escudero, citing a Commission on Audit report about 6 sequestered paintings that have gone missing since 2012.

In his second State of the Nation Address, President Rodrigo Duterte asked Congress to pass the Rightsizing the National Government Act of 2017 to remove redundancies and overlapping functions in the executive branch.

Senate President Pro-Tempore Ralph Recto, however, questioned if Congress should delegate its power to determine which offices may be abolished or merged to the executive.

"The real issue is, should Congress delegate its authority to the executive to determine which offices may be abolished or merged and the power to create other executive offices and departments without debate," Recto said.

In its current version, we are giving the executive maybe too much powers, he added.

The House of Representatives has approved the measure on Wednesday, July 26, while a counterpart bill remains pending in the Senate. Rappler.com

Originally posted here:

Koko Pimentel open to studying abolition of PCGG - Rappler - Rappler

From Estrada to Aquino, the Presidential Commission on Good Government has been criticized while several efforts have been made to end its run

Published 1:00 PM, July 28, 2017

Updated 1:00 PM, July 28, 2017

NOT THE FIRST TIME. The Presidential Commission on Good Government has been threatened to be abolished under several administrations.

MANILA, Philippines The recently announced plan of the Duterte administration to abolish the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) is nothing new.

Government officials under previous administrations initiated legislations and voiced their support to end the 3-decade run of the PCGG, citing its ineffectiveness and redundancy.

The PCGG was created through Executive Order No. 1, the first official act of former president Corazon Aquino after the 1986 People Power Revolution. It was tasked to recover the ill-gotten wealth of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, his family, and his cronies.

Latest available data from the PCGG shows that it has so far recovered P170 billion ($3.4 billion) since 1986. It still needs to recover more than half of the estimated $10 billion plundered during the Marcos regime that spanned more than 20 years. (READ: At 30: PCGG by the numbers)

The delays have been attributed to the slow grind of the justice system, coupled by dilatory tactics employed by the defendants."

Still, the PCGG has been severely criticized in the past for taking too long to fulfil its mandate, leading to some questioning its relevance and whether or not it still ought to exist. (READ: Recovering Marcos ill-gotten wealth: After 30 years, what?)

The first move to abolish the PCGG came in 1998 when then president Joseph Ejercito Estrada called on Congress to pass a law to abolish the PCGG and just transfer the cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

This was after he emphasized during his 1998 State of the Nation Address (SONA) his disappointment over the delay in the wealth recovery.

These cases have gone on long enough. Therefore, I order the Presidential Commission on Good Government to go forward on all ill-gotten wealth cases with all the evidence it has taken 12 long years to collect. No more delays, he said.

Pagkatapos ng 12 taon, siguro naman may katibayan na upang mabigyan ng katarungan ang sambayanang Pilipino. Ito ang maliwanag na halimbawa ng justice delayed, justice denied, he added.

(After 12 years, Im sure there is enough evidence to give justice to Filipinos. This is a clear example of justice delayed, justice denied.)

It was also the same year when then senator Aquilino Nene Pimentel Jr filed a bill seeking to abolish the PCGG. The bill did not prosper.

In 2001, then senator Sergio Osmea revived this issue stating that the PCGG only breeds corruption and has produced little achievements in its then 15-year existence.

A Newsbreak report in 2002 quoted Osmea as saying that it is better to simplify matters and hand the work over to the DOJ.

LEFT BEHIND. The Marcos family leaves behind documents and personal belongings in Malacaang. Photo from the Presidential Museum and Library

Osmea once again spearheaded the talks on the abolition of the PCGG.

During the 13th Congress in 2004, he filed Senate Bill No. 332, saying that the vast discretionary powers vested in the PCGG constitute dangerous opportunities for misuse of power and authority.

In fact, former PCGG chief Camilio Sabio was sentenced to 12 to 20 years in prison for graft last January 2017 stemming from anomalous vehicle leases in 2007 and 2009 when he headed the commission.

Two years after Osmea's bill, Pimentel tried again and filed Senate Bill No. 292 during the 14th Congress in 2006. In the explanatory note, he said that the PCGG has not produced significant accomplishments that would justify its continued existence.

The two bills filed during the Arroyo administration, which sought to transfer the responsibilities of the PCGG to the DOJ, did not prosper and was stuck at the committee-level.

Despite the criticism on the ground, the presidency then did not support the abolition, saying that there is no reason for it to be dismantled because we continue to receive reports from the PCGG about what they are doing to accomplish their mission.

But in July 2007, then president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, through Executive Order 643, placed the PCGG under the administrative supervision of the DOJ from the Office of the President.

This move was to fulfill the need to concentrate and enhance the full and effective recovery of the ill-gotten wealth and properties, including the investigation and prosecution of cases.

While former PCGG heads defended the relevance of their commission, it was a different case during the administration of Benigno Aquino III.

In 2011, then PCGG and now Commission on Elections Chairperson Andres Bautista, in a letter sent to Aquino, gave his team two years to finish all tasks and the transfers and winding down efforts to other agencies before it is abolished.

This move was backed by then justice secretary Leila de Lima.

The proposal, however, did not materialize. In 2013, Bautista again recommended the abolition of the PCGG since it has became too costly for the government.

Meanwhile, only one bill was filed in the Congress that sought to support the proposal in 2013. It was referred to another committee but did not prosper.

MARCOS COUNTRY. President Rodrigo Duterte sits in front of a portrait of former president Ferdinand Marcos and beside Ilocos Norte Governor Imee Marcos during the 2016 campaign period. File photo by Pia Ranada/Rappler

Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno, on Wednesday, July 26, said that the possible dissolution can happen with the passage of "Rightsizing the National Government Act of 2017" under the Duterte administration.

Despite the stealthy burial of the late dictator at the Libingan ng mga Bayani happening just less than a year ago following a controversy that went all the way to the Supreme Court Malacaang maintained there is no politics in the decision.

It was not a secret, however, that the allies of Duterte really planned to change things at the PCGG.

As early as March 2017, House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez filed a bill expanding the function of the Office of the Solicitor General to include the responsibilities of the PCGG.

This means that all the powers and responsibilities of recovering the ill-gotten wealth will go to Solicitor General Jose Calida, a Marcos supporter. It was cause for concern among advocates.

In fact, Calida was among the leaders of the Alyansang Duterte-Bongbong which campaigned for the tandem of Duterte and Ferdinand Marcos Jr during the 2016 elections. (READ: In charge of recovering ill-gotten wealth? But Calida is pro-Marcos)

In March 2017, however, he told reporters that his leanings during the campaign season will not affect his work.

Diokno, on Wednesday, also said that the commission doesnt do anything, adding that employees enjoy so much because of their perks.

In a Facebook post on its official page, the PCGG hit back, adding that it was surprised at the recent questions regarding its performance, relevance, and efficiency.

The issue surrounding the future of the PCGG, however, should not hinder ongoing efforts especially since there is still more than $5 billion in ill-gotten wealth yet to be recovered and pending cases before the Sandiganbayan. Rappler.com

Original post:

Duterte gov't not first to propose end of PCGG - Rappler

The abolition of employment tribunal fees following this week's Supreme Court ruling could have consequences for the workload of other parts of the tribunals service, it emerged today.

In hisannual reportpublished today,the senior president of tribunals Sir Ernest Ryder reveals that following the slump in employment cases after fees were introduced in 2013many 'under-utilised' employment tribunal judges were moved to other jurisdictions. The aim was to relieve pressure on tribunals with 'significant workload increases', notably the first-tier tribunal, and the immigration and asylum chamber.

In 2014, 198 judges from the employment tribunals and social entitlement chamber were assigned for two years, the report reveals. Last summer, 139 of them successfully extended their deployment. Since then, another 37 employment tribunal judges have been assigned to the immigration and asylum chamber.

However, the governments decision to scrap employment tribunal fees, following Wednesday's courtruling, could lead to employment claims returning to pre-2013 levels.

In the report, Michael Clements, president of the immigration and asylum chamber, said numbers of judges are already insufficient to meet increasing demands on the tribunal's work. The number of judges in the first-tier tribunal and immigration and asylum chamber fell from 152 in 2005 to 65 in October 2016.

The report states that the social entitlement chamber encouraged judges to take on work in other jurisdictions through assignments and deployments to cope with a 'dramatic' downturn in social security and child support cases.However, judge John Aitken, president of the social entitlement chamber, warned 'there are limits to how far we can continue to do this without experiencing a detrimental effect on our own deployment and listings'.

View post:

Tribunal fee abolition is bad news for judicial deployment plan - Law Gazette