Category Archives: Abolition Of Work

(Part 2)

The fourth reason why the Philippine sugar industry has not caught up with countries like Thailand in farm productivity is the paradox that, as we are aspiring to join the whole world in having our own Industrial Revolution 4.0 (IR 4), we have not even completed the Industrial Revolution 1.0 that happened in England more than two centuries ago, when human labor was replaced by machines. The industry still depends on too many workers in the farm (including the so-called sacadas) that rising labor costs are making farming operations unprofitable. There are less and less young people who want to stay in the farms as they become more educated and opt to work in non-agricultural jobs, especially in services in the urban areas. These alternative jobs are less strenuous and provide higher compensations. To make matters worse, the average age of a Filipino farmer is now approaching 60 years. This labor shortage could have been solved by increased mechanization but farm equipment and more advanced technology are beyond the reach of farmers who own ridiculously small farms which are not economically viable for the cultivation of sugar. As mentioned above, the ideal size of a sugar farm so that it can adopt more modern means of cultivation is 50 hectares. As we will discuss below, this ideal size can be achievedwithout taking away the ownership of land from the beneficiaries of agrarian reformby what is known as block farming. Finally, the sugar industry suffered the same fate as many sectors of the Philippine economy that had long been managed by leaders with a protectionist, inward-looking and anti-market mindset. As Dr. Adriano wrote in his column: Too much government regulation and protection of the sector has the effect of shielding it from competition and inducing efficiency in its operation. It was much easier to impose higher tariffs against imported sugar (50 % for in-quota MAV or minimum access volume of 64,050 metric tons per year, and 65 % in excess of the MAV) and strictly regulate entry of imports through issuances of import permits than doing our homework of making the sector efficient. But their long-term result is the gradual decline and decay of the sector we are now witnessing. These words are perfectly applicable to so many other sectors of the economy in agriculture, industry and services that never became globally competitive and that nurtured domestic monopolies or oligopolies because of overprotection, many times in the name of nationalism or the so-called Filipino First policy. Fortunately, the recent amendment of the Public Service Act, allowing 100 % ownership by foreigners of telecom, transport and other public services, has dealt a significant blow against this mentality. We can thank the Duterte Administration for this game changer.

To make matters worse, because of the strong political clout of our sugar barons, they have gotten away with the highest tariff protection among agricultural products. Under the World Trade Organization(WTO), we agreed on the 50-percent tariff quota for MAV and the 65-percent in excess of MAV for sugar imports. These tariff rates are higher even than rice, a more important commodity for the population. The tariff on rice is only 15 % and for meat at around 40 %. Another vital information provided by Dr. Adriano could eventually lead to the abolition of the Sugar Regulatory Authority by the Administration of President Marcos Jr. Under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the bound rate is only 5 %, meaning that sugar imports coming from ASEAN countries (like Thailand and Vietnam) will be imposed a 5-percent tariff duty. Because of the tariffication of sugar, the requirement of securing import permit should no longer be necessary because it is violative of our trade agreements with the WTO and our ASEAN partners. Curiously, no one seems to be challenging the current system of SRA issuing import licensing permits (the bone of contention in the current sugar import crisis) even if it is obviously a redundant system given sugar tariffication. It seems that the sugar industry is still the nino bonito of agriculture since no import licensing permits are needed for rice, corn, pork, poultry and other liberalized agricultural products outside of the required sanitary and phytosanitary clearances when importing. This first governance crisis under the newly installed Administration may be very providential: it may lead to a total revamp if not abolition of the SRA.

In fact, President Marcos Jr. may want to look into the possibility of abolishing both the SRA and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and transfer to the Department of Agriculture the task of sustaining what these two institutions started some years back to reconsolidate the small sugar farms that resulted from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program that was unwisely applied to sugar, in contrast with the way the Taiwanese exempted sugar from the fragmentation process. I am referring to the block farming that showed promise in increasing the productivity of sugar farming, especially in regions like Western Visayas and Central Luzon where sugar farming, with the appropriate economies of scale, can still be profitable. In contrast, I see sugar farming as a dying industry in CALABARZON.As a Batangueno, I see sugar planting as being replaced by higher-value food products like vegetables and fruits as well as livestock in Batangas because of the very high real estate prices that are now prevailing in this rapidly urbanizing part of CALABARZON. In contrast, the greatest promise of improving the productivity of sugar farms is in Mindanao, especially Bukidnon, where the farms are still reasonably large enough to adopt the most advanced forms of mechanization and modern technology, very much following the examples of the banana and pineapple sectors that are globally competitive and contribute the most to our agricultural exports.

In a report of the Peace & Equity Foundation, block farming was described as a variation of the nucleus estate model that worked very well for the Malaysians in the growing of palm oil. Reference was made in the report to farmer Ernesto Obtinalla who registered his two-hectare sugar farm to block farming through Crossing Ibos Farmers Credit Cooperative (CIFCC). After a year, his production increased from fifty (50) tons per hectare to seventy-three (73) tons per hectare. His tonnage increased by 56 % and his net income by 93 %. CIFCC was just one of the cooperatives/ associations which joined the Diversified Sugarcane Block Farming Enterprise Program of Multi-Sectoral Alliance for DevelopmentNegros (MUADNegros). In sugarcane block farming, small sugar farmers enroll their two to three hectares of farmlands with their cooperatives/associations. Once the total number of hectares reach the size in which economies of scale can be achieved (about 50 hectares), a block farm is formed. Each block farm has twenty to twenty-five farmer participants. They sign an agreement with their cooperative, giving it full authority to co-manage the farmers enrolled land for three years.

Participating farmers were paid wages but were also considered part-time owners of the enterprise, sharing in the enterprises risk and rewards. They became agri-preneurs and were upskilled and reskilled to learn how to manage bigger farms. The Peace and Equity Foundation (PEF) collaborated with the MUAD farmers organization members and provided production capital for the 55 hectares per farmer organization, and offered incentives to the farmers with the highest tonnage of sugarcane. PEF also funded the business development services given by MUAD. PEF can serve as a role model for other Nongovernment Organizations (NGOs) or Social Enterprises that are devoted to uplifting the lot of small farmers. The goal is to reconsolidate the farms that were fragmented by CARP to reach an ideal size in which mechanization and other more advanced methods of farming become economical, such as having the right plant population, the planting of high-yielding varieties, proper nutrient management and cultivation. The larger hectarage being farmed makes it possible to obtain credit at lower rates of interest and to have access to heavy equipment like tractors for land preparation and dump trucks for hauling. All these can be promoted by the Department of Agriculture in close partnership with private business enterprises and civil society. The SRA and DAR would be superfluous organizations.

For comments, my email address is [emailprotected]

SIGN UP TO DAILY NEWSLETTER

See the rest here:

Addressing the sugar crisis long term - Manila Bulletin

Experts react

September 5, 2022

ByAtlantic Council experts

On Monday, UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss was selected as her countrys newest prime minister, after triumphing over former Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak in a vote by some 160,000 members of the Conservative Party.

Truss takes over for Boris Johnson at a momentous time: War has come to Europe, inflation is battering the British economy, and the United Kingdoms messy divorce from the European Union (EU) is dragging on with a dispute over the Irish border. How will Truss, who joined the Atlantic Council in March to deliver the 2022 Christopher J. Makins Lecture, balance these challenges and deal with allies and foes abroad? We reached out to experts from the Atlantic Councils Europe Center for their thoughts.

Jump to an expert reaction:

Livia Godaert : Allies and friends will need to keep the new prime ministers attention

Sir Peter Westmacott: Expect a shift from campaign-trail rhetoric to governing reality

Ben Judah: The time for shape-shifting is over

James Batchik Which road will Truss take with Europe?

Less than eighteen months after the launch of Global Britain, its hard not to see it as a troubled initiative. Rising energy bills and inflation rates, a summer of heatwaves and heated disagreements with labor unions, and dramatic scandals turned domestic political crises have unsurprisingly pulled the countrys focus inward.

With the new prime minister decided after a tumultuous summer and contentious leadership race, we might expect that the premiership of Liz Truss will think both globally and locally. As foreign secretary, Truss spoke of a network of liberty that the United Kingdom was building with allies and like-minded partners. The network included many of the same priorities outlined in the Integrated Review last year: strategic trade and investment, economic security, tech leadership, and protection of freedom and democracy.

However, I predict that were headed for a UK foreign-policy shift: We are going to see a turn to economic diplomacy as the priority through the Group of Seven (G7) and aggressive trade-partnership negotiations, as well as a re-think of the United Kingdoms traditional partners on the world stage, continuing a process that began with Brexit.

While she is committed to NATO, Truss is far less enthusiastic about partaking in broader European political processes, exemplified by her wish to scrap pieces of the Northern Ireland protocol and her apparent frustration with French President Emmanuel Macron. She has also been described as skeptical of the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Ultimately, Truss sees the United Kingdom as first among partners rather than one of the pack and is seeking out international commitments that sustain this. The Global Britain exercise was meant to be an honest examination of the United Kingdoms place in the worldwhere it can be an effective leader, where it can be a successful facilitator and force multiplier, and where it should act in support of other key actors. Truss instead seems to be committed to Britain as a leader in a host of areas, whether or not they are where the country is most effective: support for Ukraine now and in the future, countering Russia and China, etc. But with rising challenges to the union from Scotland, new political winds in Northern Ireland, and fraying bonds in the commonwealth, her focus will be pulled in many directions beyond the domestic cost-of-living crisis. The United Kingdom has the potential to facilitate transformational policy change through collaborationwith tech regulation representing one underappreciated areabut its allies and friends will need to put in the work to keep the new prime ministers attention.

Livia Godaert is a nonresident fellow at the Europe Center.

Just 0.3 percent of the British electorate choose the leader of the Conservative Party and thusin this casethe next prime minister of the United Kingdom. To defeat her rivals, Liz Truss threw plenty of red meat at this unrepresentative, mainly white, male, southern, prosperous, aging, and anti-European sample of the electorate. This included commitments to cut taxes that have been widely criticized by economists (and some fellow Tories) and subsequently modified. She also made Britains allies wonder whats coming by declining to say that she thought the president of Francethe democratically elected (which she is not) head of state of Britains closest neighbor and allywas a friend of the United Kingdom. She advises the Ukrainians not to give an inch to Vladimir Putin, while asserting that she will soon designate China a threat to UK national security.

But recent leadership contests within both the Labour and Conservative parties have shown that what appeals to the membership doesnt necessarily appeal to the general public or win general elections. Truss has a record of rapidly shifting her positionson the monarchy, Brexit, economic policy, sending troops to Ukraine, and much elsewhen the need arises, and she did not win as big as the polls had predicted. So although she can be expected to continue blaming the EU for Britains economic ills and the self-inflicted problems caused by Brexit, there may be a more considered approach once the new prime minister gets her feet under the desk of 10 Downing Street, has to deal with the very real crises bequeathed to her by her predecessor, Boris Johnson, and finds that she needs friends abroad.

Sir Peter Westmacott is a distinguished ambassadorial fellow with the Europe Center and a former British ambassador to the United States, France, and Turkey.

Liz Truss has risen like a chameleon through British politicsalways trying to please her direct audience. She took her first steps in politics as a student activist for the third-party Liberal Democrats, advocating the legalization of cannabis and the abolition of the monarchy when she was at Oxford University, when that was a crowd-pleaser. She then turned into a Conservative MP who pushed for Britain to remain in the European Union when pro-EU politicians ran the party, before morphing into a strident Brexiteer. To win the leadership of her party she has run explicitly as a base-pleaser, making her pitch exactly what the aging, wealthy, and right-wing membership want to hear. This has taken her to the very top.

Truss will now, almost certainly, immediately shift her politics to fit the view from Downing Street, with talk of a one-hundred-billion-dollar package to tackle the energy crisis. The skills she will need now are the opposite of those that have taken her to this point. She will need to fix her name to big, precise policies and stick to them to face the magnitude of the crisis that confronts her countryand not shape-shift, which wont help Britain, let alone Liz Truss if she has any hope of winning the next election.

Ben Judah is the director of the Europe Centers Transform Europe Initiative and a veteran British journalist.

The European Union will need to wait and see which version of Liz Truss it will get. Having campaigned as a Remainer in the 2016 Brexit referendum but since evolved into a Brexiteer, Truss has been both confrontational and cooperative with Europe. Now, as prime minister, she finds herself at a crossroads with Europe again.

On the one hand, Truss risks seriously damaging her relationship with the EU early in her premiership over the situation in Northern Ireland. Truss is a sponsor of a bill to allow ministers to violate the Northern Ireland Protocol, which imposes EU-mandated customs and border checks for goods shipped to Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom rather than on the border with the Republic of Ireland. She has already threatened to invoke Article 16 of the agreement, unilaterally suspending part of the Protocol. The EU, for its part, has rejected renegotiating the agreement, having already launched legal proceedings against London for failing to enforce EU rules. Brussels is also debating additional retaliatory measures such as lawsuits or finessetting up a collision course with Truss. With sky-high inflation and energy shortages dominating the political agenda at home, there may be strong incentives for Truss to increase anti-Brussels rhetoric for domestic political gain.

On the other hand, Truss has found ways to work with Europe before. As foreign secretary, she attended the European Councils Extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council following Russias invasion of Ukraine, joining the United States, Canada, and the NATO secretary general to coordinate and show transatlantic resolve. The United Kingdom is a leading supporter of Ukraine among European countries and will be essential to the future of Europes security, as French President Emmanuel Macrons inclusion of Britain in his proposal for a European political community suggests. The recognition on both sides of the Channel of Britains role is an opening for a more functional, forward-looking relationship.

Which option Truss will choose with Europe is unclear. She may tread a middle ground, hoping to park but not resolve the Northern Ireland issue, or lean in on confrontation to score points at home and within her party. Until then, expect relations with Brussels to be uncertain.

James Batchik is an assistant director at the Europe Center.

Fri, Oct 8, 2021

Issue BriefByDame Karen Pierce, Max Bergmann, Peter Rough, Rachel Ellehuus, Yakov Feygin, Nate Sibley, Livia Godaert, Leah Scheunemann, Safa Shahwan Edwards, Margaret Jackson, Olivier-Remy Bel, Damir Marusic, Jrn Fleck, Julia Friedlander, Frances Burwell, James Batchik

What is happening to Britain in the world? Since 2016, when Brexit began with the United Kingdoms shock leave vote to quit the European Union, the conversation has become almost impossible to have without entering into a fierce and polemical debate surrounding the countrys departure.

Related Experts: Peter Westmacott, Ben Judah, and James Batchik

Image: FILE PHOTO: Conservative leadership candidate Liz Truss attends a hustings event, part of the Conservative party leadership campaign, in London, Britain August 31, 2022. REUTERS/Hannah McKay/File Photo

Continue reading here:

Experts react: The United Kingdom has a new prime minister. What should the world expect from Liz Truss? - Atlantic Council

As a cardiac surgeon for nearly five decades, Upendra Kaul dedicated himself to his calling, and gave hundreds if not thousands of people their heart back. His own heart, however, has lain all these years in his beloved Kashmir, the longing an ache that he has lived with forever. These twin threads his passion for his vocation, and for Kashmir run through When the Heart Speaks, the memoirs of this celebrated doctor.

There isnt a Kashmiri who does not know of Dr U Koul. Go to Hawal (or Halle ) in Pulwama, and you will be shown the old Kaul homestead.

Kaul, a Kashmiri Pandit, grew up in Delhi as his parents had moved to the capital in 1947, in the wake of the first India-Pakistan war. He was born a year later. Through the Delhi school year, he looked forward to the summer holiday when the family would go back home to Kashmir, into the warm embrace of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. He recalls failing one year in school. The punishment his father meted out was for him akin to a death sentence: no summer holiday in Kashmir.

The nostalgia-filled recollections of the life of a medical student in Delhi in the 1970s are an engaging read. Kaul writes unpretentiously, unselfconsciously with an evident honesty. A distinguished career took him from PGI Chandigarh to AIIMS to Batra, Fortis and Sir Gangaram.

It was as an undergraduate at Maulana Azad Medical College that he learnt to speak Kashmiri properly, from two other Kashmiri, both Muslims from the Valley, in his class. They quickly became thick buddies. Following graduate studies at G B Pant hospital, he followed his heart to Kashmir to try and join SKIMS. His effort drew a blank after Sheikh Abdullah, whom he had approached with a representation to let him join the hospital, barely gave him the time of day.

But through his work while at AIIMS he was among the first in India to use ballooning to open up arteries after training abroad and other non-surgical treatments he remained engaged with Kashmiris who came to Delhi for treatment, and remained friends with them for ever after. This is why it is a bit puzzling that his doctor-patient relationship with Yaseen Malik, the JKLF leader who is now in jail, finds zero mention.

The story is not unknown. He has been at the receiving end from trolls, especially after he was critical of the Centres abolition of Kashmirs special status. Within weeks of that, NIA took away his phone to check his exchanges with his patient, became unduly excited by a number that appeared in one message, only to be told it not rupees and crores but a blood value reading. His telling of how he was approached by one of the sharpest in Indias deep state to treat Malik, only to be become a suspect in the eyes of another arm of the state three decades later, told in his characteristically dry style, would have been a valuable addition to the book. Was it self-censorship in difficult times? Or did the publisher get cold feet?

Kauls Kashmir angst is very different from that of the Kashmiri Pandit who was uprooted in the 1990s as militancy erupted in the Valley and many in the community were targeted and killed, along with Muslims who did not toe the militants line. He writes of those times, and how he got OPD timings extended at AIIMS to accommodate Kashmiris Pandits and Muslims who were flocking to consult a fellow Kashmiri doctor, and how he helped many young uprooted Pandit men find employment in the capital. They did not care for referral systems, all they knew was there was a Kashmiri doctor who spoke their language. Sometimes he footed their bills too, and let them repay in their own time.

In 1997 came his first chance to go back to the Valley as a doctor, a long cherished dream. Persuaded by Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, he started visiting the Valley once a month to treat patients. That effort grew over the years and by 2020, Kaul and a group of doctors began a project called the Gauri Healthy Heart Project named after his mother, whose wish to a have a home in the Valley he could not fulfill in her lifetime. He also built a home in Srinagar that is also named after her. Last month, he opened a state of the art heart hospital in Hawal. He travels there every Thursday and returns to Delhi on Sunday.

Kaul may not have intended to, and he may even disagree, but his engagement with Kashmir and with Kashmiris, offers a model for the return of Kashmiri Pandits to the Valley.

Title | When The Heart Speaks Memoirs of a CardiologistAuthor: Dr Upendra KaulPublisher: Konark Publishers (2002)Pages: 224Price: Rs 750

Explained Books appears every Saturday. It summarises the core content of an important work of non-fiction.

View original post here:

Explained Books | An eminent cardiac surgeon's account of his work, and of Kashmir - The Indian Express

In 2021, Harlem-based activist Shawanna Vaughn stated during aForbesinterview: Walking into prison at 17 was the most traumatic experience of my lifeAs a person who suffers from the remnants of mass incarceration, I am very clear that the trauma starts before prison and lingers forever until there is help.

Incarceration takes a heavy toll on ones mental and physical health. The conditions of jails and prisons in the United States have long been known to increase risk of infectious disease and erode mental health. However, even among formerly incarcerated adults, we observe stark health disparities including higher rates of chronic diseases and premature mortality, which suggests that incarceration has far-reaching health consequences.

Starting in the 1970s, major shifts in legal policies, including harsher drug penalties, led to an explosion in the penal population. In two short decades, the number of Americans incarcerated nearly quadrupled, with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic minorities. This rapid growth in incarceration has since been dubbed mass incarceration. The US now holds the distinction of having the highest incarceration rates in the worldwith the vast majority of incarcerated people being convicted of nonviolent crimes.

As a result, a growing share of older adults are now aging with incarceration histories and poor health. We are just now seeing the long-term health consequences of mass incarceration policiesthe remnants that Vaughn described. However, this trend will continue as the cohorts most affected by mass incarceration are growing older. Although men are incarcerated at higher rates, women experience greater health burdens following incarceration. This is doubly true for older women of color.

Previous research posits that womens health declines following incarceration are attributable to institutional sexism and racism within the penal system. These health declines have been well documented in younger samples, but little research has explored whether the effect of previous incarceration varies by gender and race/ethnicity among older adults. To fill this gap in the literature, we used data from a nationally representative sample of Americans over the age of 50 to examine differences in mental health, measured as number of depressive symptoms, and physical health, measured as number of physical limitations like difficulty walking, by incarceration status, gender, and race/ethnicity. With nearly 12,000 respondents from the 2012/2014 waves of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), we were able to document important health disparities among older adults.

This research highlights how sexism and racism lead to unequal health following incarceration.

We found that formerly incarcerated older adults had worse mental and physical health than their peers who had not been incarcerated. Moreover, formerly incarcerated women reported worse mental and physical health than formerly incarcerated meneven after controlling for a host of social, economic, and early life factors. When we investigated differences by gender and race/ethnicity, we observed startling disparities among formerly incarcerated women of color. On average, formerly incarcerated women of color experienced an additional depressive symptom and physical limitation to the next highest group (formerly incarcerated white women) and more than triple the number of depressive symptoms and physical limitations as the healthiest group (non-incarcerated white men).

In Figure 1, we present the age-adjusted marginal means for depressive symptoms (range=0-8) by respondents incarceration, gender, and race/ethnicity status. Controlling for age, formerly incarcerated women of color reported nearly three-and-a-half depressive symptoms when surveyed; whereas, formerly incarcerated white women and formerly incarcerated men of color reported about two-and-a-half depressive symptoms. A similar pattern emerged for physical limitations (range=0-9). In Figure 2, formerly incarcerated women of color reported having approximately 4.7 physical limitations. For context, the average number of physical limitations for the entire sample was two physical limitations. These high levels of depressive symptoms and physical limitations put formerly incarcerated women of color at greater risk for clinical depression and self-care disability.

This research highlights how sexism and racism lead to unequal health following incarceration. The results of this work indicate that older adults aging with incarceration histories experience worse health; however, formerly incarcerated women of color face the greatest health disadvantage among all the formerly incarcerated groups. These health inequities are the result of decades of policy choices that have disproportionately harmed women of color.

The implications for public health policy are clear. By specifying those groups that are rendered especially vulnerable, we can better direct resources, such as targeted mental and physical health interventions for formerly incarcerated women of color. Because men are incarcerated at higher rates than women and more attention is paid to early-life incarceration experiences, formerly incarcerated older women may be an overlooked population who have not benefitted from current initiatives aimed at improving the health of formerly incarcerated adults.

Furthermore, we encourage policymakers, healthcare providers, and community organizations to take a life course perspective to incarceration and health. Re-entry or transitional programs for post-incarcerated people are often short in duration and do not recognize the need for consistent care and support into later lifepossibly long after incarceration has taken place. Our work also suggests that decarceration and abolition should be key priorities for public health. Critical scholarship in the social sciences has only confirmed what post-incarcerated people like Shawanna Vaughn know from experience: that prisons do not (merely) punish crime, but also exacerbate inequality through the production of poor health.

Featured image by Ye Jinghan viaUnsplash, public domain

See the article here:

Formerly incarcerated women of color face worse health in later life | OUPblog - OUPblog

Opinion The sight of a former executive laying into their old company is rarely less than delicious. And when that company is Microsoft, the exec is head of user experience, and the complaint is about the solid slab of sadness that is the Windows 11 Start menu? This calls for not just regular salted popcorn, but truffle-oil popcorn on a silver platter carried in by a butler.

Yet ex-Rex of UX Jensen Harris, who also confesses to being the murderer of the Windows startup sound, is, if anything, far too sparing in his regal condemnations. In the 20 years since the Start menu first appeared, it has changed many times, but arguably to little user benefit. It isn't hard to find videos of youngsters barely older than the button reacting with growing pleasure as they click around the Windows 95 desktop.

That's because the desktop metaphor was basically done. By the time it came out, Windows 95 was the beneficiary of 20 years of evolution in graphical user interfaces, first introduced in the Xerox Alto of 1973. That supplemented but did not replace the text terminal, which would be familiar to teletype operators of the 1920s. Teletypes themselves were inheritors of the QWERTY keyboard of 1873. Some 150 years later, as you compose your emails or write your jeremiad against Windows, that's basically what you're using. Stability in UX is not a bad thing.

Happier times...

Constantly messing around with UX is a bad thing, however. All you need is for it to find resources, start software, control your computer, and arrange things to your liking. Windows 95 did that perfectly well, as did Apple's System 7. By rights the GUI should have settled down then, like every UI before it.

So what went wrong?

Innovation! Differentiation! The operation of the market! Excuses, not reasons. Nobody is served by having to relearn which corner of a window has the control buttons every time they change platform. Nobody is delighted by having to play hunt-the-menu. None cry out in delight when a computer silently stashes a downloaded app who knows where instead of just putting it on the desktop where it can be moved wherever the user wishes. From version to version, from OS to OS, and in the case of Linux seemingly from moment to moment, these things shift and shimmer.

As for innovation, put it in the apps. Put it in the services. Put it under the hood. A single stable desktop would be as detrimental to innovation as USB-C. Apple has special ownership of that nonsense: USB-C has demonstrated that a single connector liberates good ideas, not stifles them. The desktop should be the cognitive USB-C, not a throwback to the days when every device had its own incompatible charger and data connectors.

The reason for the unholy UX mess with no signs of converging is, of course, marketing, and the reason they get away with it is because of one of the greatest con jobs in IT. We have been taught, and never question, the near-abolition of customer support by the OS makers. Unless you pay extra, you cannot pick up the phone or email Apple, Microsoft, and especially not Linux, to ask basic questions. You cannot say to Apple, "Which bit of the Finder actually finds things?" You cannot complain to Microsoft that File Manager thinks "Share with Skype" is the second most important file operation, right after Open. You cannot pick up a phone to Ubuntu and scream "Stop! Stop! In God's name, stop!"

The OS companies have insulated themselves from user pain, the sort that soaks up customer service resources and actually costs them money. Go to the forums, thou sluggard, and try to work out which version the answers you find are actually about. They have created their own walled poison gardens where they can mess around according to the will of whatever internal faction is carrying the day, sentencing billions to useless frustration, cognitive load, lost work, and lost lives. It is frankly criminal.

So keep your frills and fantasies, if you must, but include an alternative. Just one, and it should be the same one across the industry, like the keyboard almost is. Pick the best bits of Windows 95 and System 7. Different styles are fine, extensibility is fine providing it's standard and portable. Hand it out, then leave it the hell alone. Guess what we'll all be using in a year's time?

No, OS people, you will no longer be able to parade your latest unwanted schemes and fancies at us. You'll have to make them worth our while finding and adopting them. Then we can all concentrate on getting the damn work done. Isn't that the idea?

See the original post:

The crime against humanity that is the modern OS desktop, and how to kill it - The Register

On 9 August, the people of Kenya went to the polls to elect a new president, the incumbent president, Uhuru Kenyatta, having completed the constitutional two terms in office. There were other elections at the governorship, parliamentary and county levels but the main focus was the presidential election, with four main candidates: Deputy President, William Ruto, 55, of the United Democratic Alliance (UDA)/Kenya Kwanza Alliance; Raila Odinga, 77, of the Orange Democratic Movement/Azimio One Coalition; Professor George Wajackoyah, 63, of the Roots Party of Kenya; and David Mwaure Waihiga, 55, of the Agano Party. On 15 August, the Independent Electoral and Boundary Commission (IEBC) announced victory for William Ruto, with 7.1 million votes (50.5 %), followed by Raila Odinga, with 6.9 million votes (48.9%). Wajackoyah scored 0.44% of the votes and David M. Waihiga, 0.23%.

The result was rejected by Raila Odinga and his running mate, Martha Karua, and their supporters who threatened that the result will be challenged in court. This was Odingas fifth shot at the presidency of Kenya. At 77, losing the election means he would not achieve his dream of becoming president. He would be 82 years by the next presidential election. He has refused to congratulate William Ruto, nor has he acknowledged Rutos offer of an olive branch to run an inclusive, people-focused government. Odinga was not alone. He enjoys the support of incumbent President Uhuru Kenyatta, who has never hidden his disdain for his deputy. Kenyatta openly supported Raila Odinga, resulting in the characterisation of the Kenya presidential election as a battle between hustlers and the products of dynasties, that is, between poor Kenyans and big, influential families. Kenyattas father and Odingas father are historical figures in Kenya. Ruto describes himself as the son of a nobody, a chicken seller, whose mother sold by the roadside but who is determined to lead Kenya. Kenyatta has also refused to congratulate his deputy, as of the time of this writing. The deputys offence was that he refused to support Kenyattas plan to violate the Constitution and do a third term in office!

Yesterday, both Kenyatta and Odinga were further humiliated when the Supreme Court of Kenya, in a seven-man panel led by Chief Justice Martha Koome, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the election of 9 August was validly won by William Ruto of the UDA. The Court had three options before it: To declare and validate the election, and hence allow it to stand, to rule that William Ruto did not score up to the 50.5% announced for him, and hence declare a run-off, or to cancel the election altogether and order a rerun. The Court held that Ruto won. The other winner is Wafula Chebukati, Chairman of the Kenya Electoral Commission, who insisted on the integrity of the election conducted under his watch. As he announced the results on 15 August, four of his commissioners walked out on him, led by Juliana Cherera, the vice chairperson of IEBC, and went on to announce their own verdict at a different location. Cherera and co rejected the results, saying it was opaque. Chebukati received death threats. The two remaining commissioners who stood by him were beaten up. Odingas supporters were restless, and there were fears that Kenya could slip into another round of electoral violence, as it happened in 2017, when the Supreme Court overturned the presidential election, and ordered a new election, which led to an orgy of violence that claimed 1,100 lives and the displacement of thousands.

In 2022, the Supreme Court of Kenya received a total of nine petitions, eight of which challenged Rutos election, while one supported his victory. The Court chose to strike out two of the petitions and consolidate the remaining seven into one. It then further reduced the issues for determination to nine viz: Did the technology deployed by the IEBC meet standards of integrity? Was there interference in the transmission of Forms 34A? Were there significant differences between the physical Form 34A and what was loaded on the IEBC portal? Did the president-elect get 50%+ one of the votes cast? Were there discrepancies in the results? Where were the irregularities alleged by the petitioners, if any, and to what degree? Did the IEBC act in accordance with the law? Did the postponement of Mombasa and Kakamega governorship elections and other polls result in voter suppression? What relief and orders should the Supreme Court consider? In the course of the 14 days during which the petitions were considered, Odingas lawyers insisted that the IEBC election technology was tampered with, and that election servers were pre-configured by mercenaries from Venezuela who intercepted and manipulated results.

The Supreme Court of Kenya, in determining the nine issues identified, ruled entirely in favour of William Ruto and the IEBC, and dismissed the claims by the petitioners. They found that the petitioners did not prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, that there were no discrepancies, no interference in the verification, uploading and transmission of results, that there was no evidence of pre-configuration of results or conspiracy to taint the transmission process. The Court also upheld the authenticity of Form 34A, and accused the petitioners of pushing sensational information, hearsay evidence, and actions bordering on perjury, while blowing hot air, and going on a wild goose chase. Thus, along those lines, the Supreme Court of Kenya confirmed the election of William Ruto as the fifth President of Kenya.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Kenya deserve applause for giving a ruling that addresses the issues pointedly, promotes stability, and acquits the Court honourably in helping to protect democracy.Days before the ruling, there had been speculations in Kenya that the Supreme Court had been intimidated and bribed by the President and the ODM candidate, Odinga, and that attempts had also been made to bribe the Chairman of IEBC, Chebukati. In the course of the election petition, there had been so much disinformation and misinformation with persons pushing all kinds of conspiracy theories on social media. The big issue in the 2022 Kenya election would seem to be the distrust between the people and their institutions. The petitioners fuelled that divisive factor by simply insisting that there was no way their man could lose. The whole matter got messy when John Githongo, Kenyas corruption czar whose story has been told most eloquently in Michela Wrongs book Its Our Turn to Eat backed Odingas campaign and reported that he had information that indeed a 56-member hacker team manipulated Forms 34A.

What the Supreme Court ruling has done is to confer legitimacy on the results as announced by Chebukati on August 15. Future reviews of the ruling may well indicate that the Court downplayed some of the limitations of the election, while focussing heavily on the sensational and conspiracy-laden submissions by the petitioners, but the position of the law today is that Rutos election stands. For Rutos supporters, this will strengthen their belief in Kenyas democracy that it is indeed possible for the child of the poor to aspire to the highest position in the land. Except that Ruto had long ago moved from being a poor hustler, without a dynasty to a ranking member of the Kenyan establishment. For establishment figures like Kenyatta and Odinga, they are now under pressure to act like statesmen. As the Supreme Court delivered its ruling, anxious young Kenyans watched the proceedings on big screens on the streets of the Rift Valley of Eldoret and in Nakuru and Mt. Kenya: strongholds of the main gladiators.

On Sunday, both Ruto and Odinga promised to respect the decision of the Supreme Court. They must now be joined by President Uhuru Kenyatta and others in doing so. Shortly after the Supreme Court verdict, Martha Karua, Odingas running mate, wrote on Twitter: The court has spoken. I respect its decision, but disagree with the findings.Her principal Raila Odinga said more or less the same thing. He too disagrees, and accuses the Supreme Court of using unduly exaggerated language.But it is democracy that has won. It is time for Kenya to move on. Next week, William Ruto will be sworn in as next President of the Republic of Kenya. His victory has been hard-fought and hard-won. It is particularly instructive that ethnicity has not been a major, problematic factor in this election. Even in Bondo town, the Opoda home of Raila Odinga, there have been no protests. There have been no celebrations either.The people say they are ready to work with the new President but he must not sideline the region. Raila Odinga should listen to his own people.At the inauguration of the President next week, Kenyatta, Odinga, and all the other key figures in the election must project an image of unity, attend the occasion and show solidarity because Kenya is more important than their individual ambitions. William Ruto is not the thug or thetanga tanga man,Kenyatta says he is. He is the choice of the people of Kenya who certainly trust him to move their country forward.

Congratulations, President William Ruto. It is now time for work! The issue of the legitimacy of the election may have been settled by the Supreme Court but there is the remaining issue of how to build trust in government and promote unity across Kenya. You promised to eschew the politics of vengeance, and run an inclusive government. You recently invited Odinga to come have a cup of tea and a conversation. You should extend that invitation again not just to Odinga, but also to Kenyatta and others. Your wife, Rachel Ruto has been quoting the Bible and talking about destiny. She is probably right: William Ruto would be the first Deputy President in Kenyan history to succeed his principal, and the second Kalenjin after Daniel Arap Moi, to become President. Both the burdens of history and office place a great responsibility on Rutos shoulders. He must proceed with maturity and wisdom in the best interest of the people of Kenya who are painfully weighed down by the high cost of everything from petrol to national sovereignty and security. And for us Nigerians: here is a lesson: Look at how the Presidential election petitions in Kenya were swiftly determined all within two weeks, before swearing-in. In Nigeria, we delay so much and allow the declared winner to use state resources and institutions to determine outcomes.We need to reform that aspect of our electoral process, to avoid unnecessary delays and manipulation of institutions, and to encourage our judges to be courageous, by conferring the Supreme Court of Nigeria with original jurisdiction in Presidential election matters since in any case, they aresui generis.

II.

UK: Liz Truss for Leader

On Monday, 5 September, Mary Elizabeth Truss, 47, Liz Truss for short, was proclaimed the new leader of the UK Conservative Party, thus making her the new British prime Minister replacing Bris Johnson who resigned in July after his government was hit by what became known as the Party-gate scandal.The Returning Officer for the election said Truss got 81, 326 votes 57% while the runner up, Rishi Sunak got 60, 399 votes representing 43%. A total of 172, 437 Tories voted, turn-out was 82.6 %, only 654 votes were voided. It was a much smaller margin of victory than was predicted (just 18%) which means that Truss as PM would have a lot of work to do to carry other party members along. Rishi Sunak certainly was not disgraced, and he has been most gentlemanly in promptly congratulating the winner and asking the party to unite behind her. He deserves praise for his courage and his refusal to drop the ball even when all pundits predicted a Truss win. His ideas may well still find accommodation in the new administration.

Today, 6 September, Truss and Boris Johnson will travel to Balmoral in Scotland together for Boris Johnson to take his leave, and for Truss to receive the Queens authority to form a government in line with the UKs unwritten Constitution and the Queens role as Head of Government. They will depart from the Queens presence as a combination of the old and the new, and the beginning of a new momentum in Great Britain. In her acceptance speech, Truss praised Boris Johnson: Boris, you got Brexit done, you crushed Jeremy Corbyn, you rolled out the vaccine, and you stood up to Vladimir Putin. You are admired from Kyiv to Carlisle.These are very kind words, and history may indeed be kind in the long run to Boris Johnsons legacy, but it would also be remembered of him that he ended up as the first Prime Minister in UK history to have broken the law while in office. Truss is now the third woman to assume office as British Prime Minister after Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May before her. She says she is a modern-day Thatcherite: she wants to cut taxes, address the cost-of-living crisis, address the concerns of households and businesses, and deliver in the next two years and also deliver victory for the Conservative Party in 2024. But can Liz Truss be trusted to move from political rhetoric to action and truly deliver?Her critics insist that she is a master of political convenience and chameleonic politics. With a political beginning as a Liberal Democrat who once advocated for the abolition of the British monarchy, she has shifted so ideologically along the political spectrum, between 2010 when she got elected to parliament till this moment, when she would lead Her Majestys Government.

For her, it must be the best of times personally, but the worst of times to be Prime Minister. She is practically inheriting an economic catastrophe in the UK. Inflation is over 10%, the highest in 40 years. The cost-of-living crisis is so bad that families now skip meals and companies like Lewis Partnership are promising free meals for staff during winter. Even pub owners are saying, without government help, they may have to increase the cost of beer by 500% per pint, making it 20 pounds per pint! Many families cant afford gas for vehicles or for their homes. Truss has not given any specific details as to what she would do, but certainly, this is no longer time to play to the gallery.

Nigerians should watch the UK space closely as we prepare for the 2023 general election. Liz Truss is the product of a well-honed internal party democracy system, which we do not have in Nigeria. The Tory election was issues-driven. Here, our politicians dont even understand the issues enough to talk coherently. Today, Liz Truss is likely to announce her cabinet. Tomorrow she will face PMs Question Time in parliament and slug it out with Keir Starmer. She was born in 1975. Whoever wants to become Nigerias President in 2023, must pay attention, and learn the best lessons from other jurisdictions.

Reuben Abati, a former presidential spokesperson, writes from Lagos.

Donate

TEXT AD: Call Willie - +2348098788999

See original here:

Kenya: William Ruto's triumph, By Reuben Abati - Premium Times

You wait ages for the bus, and then three come along at once. Books are a bit like that, too, although in this case its only a pair of them, both tackling the question of what to do about all the climate refugees. (The UNs International Organisation for Migration estimates that 1.5 billion people may be forced to move in the next 30 years alone.)First up is Gaia Vince, a British environmental journalist who has interviewed a great many climate scientists. Her book is Nomad Century: How Climate Migration Will Reshape Our World, and she has certainly grasped the key political problem in a rapidly heating world: some people will be hurt a great deal more than others.Its mainly a question of distance from the equator. Countries in the tropics and the sub-tropics will be experiencing intolerable temperatures, accompanied by monster storms, droughts and floods, well before mid-century, while those in the temperate latitudes will suffer inconvenience and discomfort but far less actual damage.In particular, they will still have an adequate food supply, while those nearer to the equator will be seeing their agriculture collapse. Thats what will start the refugees moving in their millions and 70 per cent of the worlds population lives in these vulnerable regions. The only places for them to go for safety is to the richer countries farther north or farther south.The refugees will feel entitled to settle in those privileged countries, too, since the rich, industrialised countries are responsible for the great majority of the greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, etc.) that have caused the warming. It is astoundingly unfair that the culprits get off lightly while the innocent are ruined and the innocent know it.The mass movement of climate refugees from poor, hot countries to rich, temperate ones is the political dynamite that could destroy global cooperation on stopping the emissions and the warming. Everybody who has been paying attention knows that, but Gaia Vince has a suggestion for dealing with it.What we need, she says, is a planned and deliberate migration of the kind humanity has never before undertaken, in which several billion refugees from the worst-hit regions are resettled in the richer, cooler parts of the world. After all, most of the latter countries have falling birth rates, and theyll need someone to look after them when theyre old.And then we have James Crawfords new book, The Edge of the Plain: How Borders Make and Break Our World. He sees the same problem of mass migration, and offers an even more radical solution: the abolition of borders. Away with the fusty rules of the Westphalian system, in which each state has absolute sovereignty within fixed frontiers.Crawford likes anything that undermines or dissolves those rigid borders, like the nation of Sapmi that sort of unites the Lapps of Russia, Finland, Sweden and Norway, or the climate mobility advocated by Simon Kofe, foreign minister of Tuvalu.Kofes tiny island country will be the first to disappear as the sea level rises, but he wants its sovereignty to continue even though all its citizens must live elsewhere. The sovereignty of the countries that give homes to Tuvaluans and refugees from a hundred other countries would also survive, but shared with the many sovereignties of the new arrivals.Vince and Crawford are sincere and intelligent people taking on a genuinely existential problem: how can we cooperate to make it through the climate crisis when the pain and the blame are so unequally shared?Vince writes about having to shed some of our tribal identities and embrace a pan-species identity, but both authors must know that what they are proposing is unrealistic and unlikely. Bits of that transition are already stirring, but its hard to believe that it can supplant the traditional loyalties in the next thirty to 50 years, which is the relevant time-frame.Theres also a hidden defeatism here. Both authors assume that the heating will be big and long-lasting enough to force the refugees to move. Thats effectively writing off a lot of the planet as a human abode at least for a long time, if not forever.Vince is well aware of all the partial techno-fixes to the climate crisis that are being discussed or investigated. She does not dismiss geoengineeering out of hand, but she doesnt see its real potential either.Holding the temperature down artificially, if it can be made to work safely, is a patch designed to win us time to get our emissions down without a disaster, not a permanent solution to the problem. But the biggest disaster it would forestall is the climate refugee crisis: if the heating stops not far from where it is now, the refugees never start to move.

See more here:

What shall we do with the climate refugees? - Trinidad & Tobago Express Newspapers

In October 2021, Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha launched 'Aapki Zameen Aapki Nigrani' initiative to facilitate easy online access to the land records system, reduce manipulation, and improve efficiency of Revenue offices in the Himalayan region. Since then there has been no looking back.

'Aapki Zameen Aapki Nigrani' under the Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme(DILRMP) was aimed at modernizing management of land records and enhancing transparency in the maintenance mechanism.

Introduction of the new system has reduced the scope of land, property disputes, and has facilitated conclusive titles to immovable properties across the Union Territory.

The major components of the programme included computerization and digitization of land records, survey, resurvey and updation of all survey and settlement records, integration of property registration with land records and cadastral maps for enhancing authenticity and security of data.

After the launching of 'Aapki Zameen Aapki Nigrani' 1553 Patwarkhanas have empowered the common citizens in 'Naya Jammu and Kashmir.'

The work of digitization of land records is going on in all 20 districts across the Union Territory. Of 6912 villages, the process of digitisation has been completed in 3049 villages i.e. land records of about 44.11 per cent villages have been digitised.

The government has embarked on the mission to create a database of all the relevant records and information for extending all the help readily on a real time basis. These steps have made the Revenue officials accountable as the process is on to make all the records available online so that every inch of the land owned or possessed by anyone remains in public domain.

Revenue records click away

Before August 5, 2019--when the Centre announced its decision to abrogate J-K's special status and divided it into two Union Territories--there was no mechanism available for citizens to view or monitor the status of their revenue records online. They had to move from pillar-to-post to obtain even a copy of land records like Jamabandi or Khasra Girdwari.

The opacity in the system encouraged corruption, putting citizens at the mercy of the system. The digitisation of land records has ushered transparency and accountability.

The so-called elite class in J-K since 1947 to 2019 used to believe that it's above the law and it could keep whatever it wants. During the past three years noose has been tightened around big business families that were allotted land on lease at throw away prices at prime locations by the former regimes. The properties under their possession are being re-evaluated and the records are being put straight. Lease period of many properties has expired.

These families are being asked to either renew the lease as per the present market value or surrender the properties under their possession.

The land leased out at prime locations to the influential people had remained away from the public glaze for 70 long years but after the digitisation process commenced everything came to fore.

'Aapki Zameen Aapki Nigrani' initiative has made the revenue records accessible at one click. The public users can now search and view copies of the scanned data online on CIS Portal- http://landrecords.jk.gov.in/.

Nearly 7.70 crore pages of revenue record and 55216 Musavi (maps) have been scanned, besides 3895 ground control points have been established, and a web-based enterprise Geo-Information System (GIS) has been developed.

After the notification of Jammu and Kashmir Agricultural Land (Conversion for non-agricultural purposes) Regulations, 2022 was issued Change in Land Use process has been simplified. The applications for the same can now be filed online and disposal shall be within 30 days.

Under Jammu and Kashmir Land Pass-Book Rules 2022, Land Pass-book with verifiable QR Code, Unique Numbers are being issued to the land owners this has led to decline in number of land dispute cases and has made it easy to check fraudulent transactions.

Adaptation of Central Laws

Nearly one year after abrogation of the abrogation of Article 370, a temporary provision in the Constitution, the Centre abolished 7-decade old "Big Land Estates Abolition Act 1950," under which the erstwhile princely state witnessed the redistribution of land to end Zamindari system.

In October 2020, the Centre notified the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptation of Central Laws) Third Order, enabling a host of new changes to the erstwhile state.

The implementation of the new law opened up Jammu and Kashmir to the world as it provided that anyone who wanted to buy non-agricultural land in J-K didn't require a permanent resident certificate.

The Union Home Ministry also notified the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, paving the way for the acquisition of land in J-K by all Indian citizens. Prior to the implementation of this act the Article 35-A of J-K Constitution, which was scrapped on August 5, 2019, placed prohibitions on the sale of land to those who were non-state subjects.

The new law also empowered the government to declare any area in J-K as 'strategic' and intended for the direct operational and training requirement of the armed forces.

Real Estate Summit

After the new land reforms were introduced and implemented the J-K Government organized the first-ever real estate summit in Jammu in December 2021 in which 39 Memorandum of Understanding worth Rs 18,300 crore were signed with the country's real estate investors for the development of housing and commercial projects in the Union Territory.

In April this year Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha held consultations with top officials and team from the Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Associations of India (CREDAI) including the members of its elected council, president and vice-presidents, office-bearers of JK Economic Growth and Development Dialogue (LEAD) and town planning consultants to chalk out the modalities for the second Real Estate Summit to be held in Srinagar.

The land reforms and the digitisation of land records in Jammu and Kashmir have proven to be major steps towards systematic growth of urban and rural areas in J-K.

The aim is clear i.e. to create robust urban infrastructure, and improve the system of public service delivery for quality living. Experts are studying the model of other cities to create affordable, inclusive, ecologically sustainable housing equipped with the best essential basic services for a common man.

The efforts are on to transform the landscape of real estate across 'Naya Jammu and Kashmir' and the people are supporting each and every move of the government to transform the Himalayan region, which remained deprived of progress and prosperity due to Article 370 remaining in vogue for 70-years. (ANI)

Original post:

Digitisation of records, land reforms turn 'Naya J&K' hi-tech - Rising Kashmir

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Slavery helped bring about the deadliest military conflict in the history of the United States the American Civil War.

The Trans-Atlantic trading routes brought in more than 12 million enslaved Africans to the Western Hemisphere between 1525 and 1866. However, approximately 388,000 slaves were brought into North America with only 10.7 million surviving the voyage to the New World. The Abolition Movement was a key part of the fight to abolish slavery in the United States.

Slavery in the United States was officially abolished on December 6, 1865, with the ratification of the 13th Amendment after it was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865. The amendment declares that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Previously, the most significant effort to end slavery was made by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation which stated, "all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." This, however, did not end Slavery because it only freed slaves in areas actively rebelling against the Union and not in the border states such as Kentucky or West Virginia. Therefore, Lincoln sought to make the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery the top priority of the Republican Party platform in the 1864 Presidential election.

Slavery was one of key issues that caused the American Civil War. (REUTERS/Brian Snyder)

Congress passed the 13th Amendment shortly before conclusion of the Civil War. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

HOW LINCOLN, DOUGLASS EMERGED TO REUNIFY AMERICA IN 'THE PRESIDENT AND THE FREEDOM FIGHTER'

Initially, the 14th Amendment passed the Senate but failed to pass in the House of Representatives in April 1864. However, after the 1864 election, the House voted in favor of the amendment with a vote of 119-56. In February 1865, Lincoln approved the resolution and submitted it for ratification in the state legislatures. Thereafter, the 14th and 15th Amendments soon joined the 13th in order to protect the civil rights of Americans in the aftermath of the Civil War.

JUNETEENTH: WHAT IS IT AND WHY DO WE CELEBRATE IT?

Mississippi was the last state to ratify the 13th Amendment in 1995 but did not submit the official paper work until 2013. (AP Newsroom)

The 13th amendment was ratified by the necessary three-fourths of states in December 1865. Mississippi became the last state of the four that voted not to ratify it. In 2013, Mississippi officially ratified the amendment after failing to make it official by notifying the US Archivist when the state legislature originally ratified it in 1995.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Read the original here:

What year was slavery abolished in the US? - Fox News

The United Nations Human Rights Council met for its 50th Regular Session from June 13 to July 8, 2022. If you missed it, here is what happened regarding the abolition of the death penalty!

DURING THE DEBATES

Opening her last session as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet informed the Human Rights Council about the evolution of the human rights situation in the world. This speech was marked by strong information about the death penalty: In Singapore, I am also concerned about the recent executions of two people for drug-related offenses. It is estimated that more than 60 defendants are on death rowI urge the government to impose a moratorium on the death penalty, especially for non-violent drug crimes. Michelle Bachelet also welcomed the announcement of measures taken to abolish the death penalty in its entirety in the Central African Republic and to abolish the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia, as well as the commitment of the President of Zambia to abolish the death penalty.

Yao Agbetse, spoke about some positive developments in the country, including the adoption of the law on the abolition of the death penalty.

The death penalty was also mentioned during the presentation of the Secretary-Generals report on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Javaid Rehman. He expressed concerns about the increase in executions, particularly for drug-related offenses.

The Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, Anas Marin, spoke about the death penalty in Belarus: Amendments to the Criminal Code have broadened the scope of the death penalty to include planning or attempting to commit terrorist acts.

CIVIL SOCIETY ORAL STATEMENTS ON THE DEATH PENALTY

On the occasion of this 50th session, several members of the World Coalition against the Death Penalty presented oral statements on the death penalty.

During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on 22 June, the International Federation of ACATs (FIACAT) wished to draw attention to some news concerning the death penalty in sub-Saharan Africa during their oral statement. Ensemble contre la peine de mort (ECPM), also intervened in a video recording to highlight the increase in executions in 2021 as well as the use of the death penalty as a political tool or means of diplomatic pressure by certain States. ECPM also encouraged states to vote in favor of the Resolution for a universal moratorium on the use of the death penalty in December 2022.

On July 6, 2022, the interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on the Central African Republic was held. ECPM, the International Federation of ACAT (FIACAT) and Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture in the Central African Republic (ACAT-RCA) intervened in an oral statement to congratulate the Central African authorities and deputies for the vote in favor of the abolition of the death penalty in CAR.

In an oral statement by Harm Reduction International (HRI) to the UN Human Rights Council on the right to life, the organization referred to the fact that the death penalty remains a punishment for drug-related offenses in 35 countries today and urged member states to respect the obligation to protect the right to life.

A group of 20 experts issued a statement on the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, noting that the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found widespread rights violations related to drug law enforcement, including extrajudicial killings and abuse of the death penalty.

The Human Rights Council adopted the outcome of Southern Sudans Universal Periodic Review on July 4. The recommendations on the abolition of the death penalty were and the authorities of Southern Sudan were also urged to work towards the abolition of the death penalty.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED

The Human Rights Council adopted 23 resolutions and one decision and appointed eight mandate holders. Although there was no specific resolution on the death penalty at this session, one of them was related to the death penalty:

Belarus In a resolution on the human rights situation in Belarus, the Council expressed concern about the use of the death penalty in a context where fair trial guarantees are not respected. It extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus for a period of one year.

SIDE EVENTS

Contrary to the last session held in March, the side events were able to resume in a hybrid format. However, very few were organized during this session in general.

A side event on youth and the death penalty was organized by the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations, the International Commission against the Death Penalty (ICDP) and eight UN member states (Belgium, France, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and Timor-Leste).

The International Commission against the death penalty co-organized with Kazakhstan a side event consisting of a roundtable on lessons learned by countries from national experiences in the global campaign for a universal abolition of death penalty.

Finally, the Human Rights Council marked its 50th session by organizing an interactive high-level discussion allowing stakeholders to reflect on achievements and lessons learned since its first session in 2006. Take a look at the origins and work of the Human Rights Council.

The fifty-first regular session of the Human Rights Council is scheduled to take place in Geneva from 12 September to 7 October 2022.

View post:

The United Nations Human Rights Council met for its 50th Regular Session from June 13 to July 8, 2022. - WCADP - World Coalition Against the Death...