Category Archives: Government Oppression

BUDAPEST On a leafy hilltop in Budapest, a small educational foundation inside an aging, former Communist police building has audacious plans to train a conservative future elite. It is constructing a colossal campus, wooing conservative intellectuals for the faculty and expanding its programs to train 10,000 students across Hungary and elsewhere in Europe.

The price tag is expected to run into many millions of dollars, but money isnt a problem: The privately managed foundation, Mathias Corvinus Collegium, or M.C.C., was recently granted more than $1.7 billion in government money and assets from a powerful benefactor: Hungarys prime minister, Viktor Orban.

A hero to Europes far right, Mr. Orban says he wants to overhaul education and reshape his countrys society to have a more nationalistic, conservative body politic. But his critics argue that the donation is legalized theft, employed to tighten Mr. Orbans grip on power by transferring public money to foundations run by political allies.

Even for Mr. Orban, who has persistently flouted democratic norms, it is a brazen move, especially as Hungarys health system is underfinanced and buckling under the strain of Covid-19. The $1.7 billion transfer to the educational foundation is about 1 percent of the countrys gross domestic product. The foundation now controls assets worth more than the annual budget of the countrys entire higher education system.

This is not about Hungarian higher education, said Istvan Hiller, a lawmaker from the opposition Socialist Party and former education minister who now serves as a deputy speaker of Parliament. This is about building a foundation to solidify power.

Mr. Orban has dominated Hungarian politics for more than a decade, walking a delicate line with European Union leaders, who for the most part have tolerated his excesses. But he is now under growing pressure in Europe, where one leader has openly questioned whether Hungary should remain in the bloc, and in Hungary, where his popularity has suffered from his governments handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

Mr. Orban is expected to seek a fifth term in 2022, facing off against a newly unified opposition and the possibility that his governing party, Fidesz, could lose power, or, at minimum, its two-thirds supermajority in Parliament. Fidesz has used the supermajority to steer once-public assets to loyalists, and critics say the possibility of election losses next year is accelerating that trend.

Bernadett Szel, an opposition lawmaker, said that Mr. Orban and his allies were creating an insurance policy for themselves in case they lost power by transferring public money to an ideologically constrained circle.

They are acting like they are doing a public good, Ms. Szel said, but they are actually stealing from the public.

Mr. Orban has already moved against private media outlets in Hungary, cheering the 2018 consolidation of almost 500 under the ownership of a single foundation controlled by his allies. But in late April, Mr. Orban oversaw one of the most sweeping systemic changes yet, with all but five public universities placed under the control of privately managed foundations.

The universities joined a growing ecosystem of 32 foundations and mostly conservative, government-affiliated think tanks which received about $3.5 billion in public money in the past year, according to K-Monitor, an independent nonprofit. These interlocking foundations are actually in private hands and control public parks, a cinema, concert halls, a boarding high school and much more.

Mr. Orban, a champion of what he calls illiberal democracy, has spoken about his ambition to intertwine conservative politics with culture and academia. His government has banned gender studies, and he now personally controls the appointment of the top administrator to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. (His government also forced the Central European University, founded by Hungarian-American billionaire philanthropist George Soros, to relocate to Austria.)

When the government moved to privatize the universities in April, the biggest beneficiary was the M.C.C. foundation, which received government-owned shares worth $1.3 billion in two companies, cash injections worth $462 million and $9 million of property, including a luxury estate and a marina on Lake Balaton in western Hungary.

The incestuous nature of the foundations structure is evident in its advisory boards. Members are appointed for life, and only they can elect new members. Not a single woman sits on any of them.

The leader of M.C.C.s main board is Balazs Orban (no relation to the prime minister), who has a dual role. As a state secretary in the prime ministers office, he helped mastermind the property transfer to the foundation. And as its chairman, he oversees the recently privatized assets. Another board member is Zoltan Szalai, who also runs a glossy, pro-government weekly called Mandiner. A cafe he owns recently received a $2 million donation of once-public money for use as an event space. The cafe, Scruton, is named after the conservative English philosopher Roger Scruton.

M.C.C. is not a university in its own right, but a residential college. It provides special seminars and a dormitory to students, selected after a battery of I.Q. and other tests, who then receive stipends, networking opportunities and exclusive fellowships. Orban critics have labeled the foundation as an institution designed to breed right-wing intellectuals.

In an interview with The New York Times, Balazs Orban said that the M.C.C. project was critical for a small country like Hungary, with its history of occupation by foreign powers.

Its very important for us to have our own agenda, have our own mind-set, have our own independence, culture, he said. We always have to fight for it.

He was adamant that fomenting patriotism among the next generation of Hungarys leaders was the priority.

Ideology is not important. Patriotism is, he said.

But recent articles and podcasts produced by M.C.C. have discussed reading lists or pushed intellectual lines supportive of the governments antiglobalist message, discussing topics such as patriotism at a time of globalism, or whether political correctness is tolerance or oppression.

Mr. Orbans government is not alone in targeting higher education. In Poland, a think tank with close ties to the right-wing government recently established Collegium Intermarium, a university that hopes to foster a conservative Christian elite.

Ivan Krastev, a Bulgarian political analyst, said that the changes in Hungary appeared mostly to be about money and power. But he noted that leaders in Hungary and Poland viewed universities as key battlegrounds in their quest to retain power.

There is a very strong fear that universities are totally lost for the conservative side, that they are totally dominated by left liberals, and getting control of universities is becoming a big priority for these governments, Mr. Krastev said.

Balazs Orban plans to use the M.C.C.s wealth to expand programs for high school and elementary school students, aiming in the next three years to enroll 10,000 students in 35 European cities that have large Hungarian populations, mostly in neighboring countries.

M.C.C. was established in 1996 with private money from a Fidesz backer, with the goal of training a post-Communist elite. It was known as more conservative than other residential colleges but was respected for providing high-caliber independent programs. While many lecturers views hew closely to the Fidesz line, some are independent or apolitical.

In interviews, some students wondered if the influx of cash and government attention would force a more partisan line of study. Others praised the institution for its quality and low student-to-faculty ratio, and for providing extraordinary access to scholars and policymakers.

Its a huge opportunity, said Viktor Lazar, a third-year student in business and economics at M.C.C.

In most cases at university, we are just given lectures, he said. Here in M.C.C., it is always so easy to ask a question because we are in small groups.

While there are some conservative students at M.C.C., many do not necessarily support the Orban government. Some worried privately that after M.C.C. received so much media attention, their education might come with a stigma attached.

Even if the opposition comes to power next year, it is unclear whether they could dismantle the educational foundations or restore universities to their previous status. A future parliament could not change the rules regulating public interest foundations without a two-thirds majority.

Elections lose their meaning if a deep state, with competencies, assets and revenues given to Fidesz, remains in control no matter who wins, said Balint Magyar, a sociologist and former two-term education minister who researches post-Communist governments.

Mr. Hiller, the former Socialist education minister, said that the debate over the higher education system would deepen polarization in Hungary, no matter who triumphs in the April vote.

The whole system is built on this ideological shift, he said. The effects will last for decades.

David Mihalyi contributed reporting.

Read the original:

Campus in Hungary is Flagship of Orbans Bid to Create a Conservative Elite - The New York Times

I suspect that for many of my American, Palestinian, and Israeli peers, the word apartheid is relatively new to their lexicon. In recent weeks, Ive seen it sprinkled frequently across organizations statements, Instagram story infographics, and powerful opinions I have edited for this very paper. But for other South Africans and me, that word has been inescapably familiar since birth.

Apartheid carries a different, considerable weight back home and I wish more people respected that.

Mostly, I see people tossing around formal definitions of apartheid from institutions like the International Criminal Court, which talks of crimes against humanity committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.

What a sad, sterile, scholarly, and outrageously inadequate definition.

In all my years being born and raised in South Africa, never once have I heard a South African describe Apartheid that way. Note, for starters, how I capitalize the a in Apartheid because for my countrymen, apartheid is not some abstract concept to be defined by jargon in international humanitarian law. Ask a South African to define the word apartheid, and theyll likely look at you funny because Apartheid is not a word to be defined at all. Apartheid was a set of torturous lived events in history that still influence every aspect of millions of lives to this day.

Yes, Apartheid was systemic oppression of one racial group by another, but that description alone does not do it justice. Apartheid was one of dehumanizations most aggressive manifestations. Apartheid was how people lived entire lives or had them cut short under all-consuming, unrelenting fear. Apartheid is why so many Black South Africans still live in poverty in the most economically inequitable country in the world. Apartheid was the chronic trauma inflicted upon multiple generations of a nation generations of people still alive and well enough to tell stories of cruelty that will haunt many generations to come.

So, when I say the actions of the Israeli government and military are not Apartheid, I do not mean that the restricted civil rights and inhumane living conditions that Israel forces upon Palestinians are not terrifyingly reprehensible and oppressive. Nor do I mean that they dont rise to the standard of that sterile legal definition I believe there is a strong case for that.

I simply mean to say that Apartheid, to the people it has directly affected, refers to something quite distinct and I would like to give those events their own sanctified space in our language.

Carving out a space for significant events in language is not without precedent. One such example of particular relevance to Israel is the word holocaust. Holocaust the uncapitalized version has been a word with a meaning separate from the actions of Nazi Germany for centuries. However, in all likelihood, both of the times you just read the word holocaust, you instinctively thought of The Holocaust intentionally so. We collectively use that word to refer to a particular set of genocidal events because they deserve that important spot in our history and discourse. We would not want to water down that unimaginable horror by referring to all somewhat analogous events in the same way.

Apartheid an Afrikaans word entirely created to refer to the oppressive program of the white South African government also deserves a particular space in our language and collective memory.

I do, however, have some reservations about restricting the use of apartheid. If the thought of Apartheid can strike enough fear into enough people that they feel compelled to better the lives of oppressed people in Palestine or elsewhere, part of me thinks, Go ahead and scream it from the rooftops if you must! Allow the term invented to describe my peoples struggle to continue liberating people wherever they are.

Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement in Palestine, has gone as far as to describe the South African anti-Apartheid struggle as the most important factor that has affected the Palestinian BDS movement. Hearing this, I cannot help but feel a touch of patriotic pride at my peoples actions being made into the playbook of how to powerfully and non-violently fight systemic oppression. It also affirms to me that activists fighting for Palestinians are using the term apartheid reverently and for all the right reasons.

But theres another side of me that has seen the unwillingness of the Israeli government to budge on its actions and Americas unwillingness to budge on supporting it. This side of me knows how the American political media machine, big on marketing and catchphrases but short on nuance, treats evocative words like apartheid without any of the reverence or respect they deserve.

Knowing those realities, I cant help but feel that apartheid might just resonate as nothing more than an activist slogan in the minds of a critical mass of the public without having had any impact on the lives of Palestinians.

Tragically, I fear that an unintended consequence of calling Israels actions apartheid will be the memories of all the lives lost, bloodshed, and torment endured on South Africans long walk to freedom fading along with the slogan Israeli Apartheid. Unfortunately, this might already be the case.

The conditions under which Palestinians are being made to live make my heart heavy with grief and sorrow. But those conditions are not The Apartheid I grew up in the aftermath of and I would hate to have that fall into obscurity.

Marcus B. Montague-Mfuni 23, Crimson Diversity and Inclusivity Committee Chair and Associate Editorial editor, is a joint concentrator in Social Studies and African and African American Studies in Dunster House.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.

See the article here:

Don't Call What Israel is Doing Apartheid | Opinion - Harvard Crimson

Two thirds of British people would be concerned by government plans to criminalise protest, polling shows.

Research seen exclusively by The Independent suggests that two thirds of the population also agreed with the statement that people have the right to attend a protest to stand up for what they believe in.

It comes as the government backs a suite of controversial protest laws that would increase police powers to impose restrictions.

Last week, parliaments Joint Committee on Human Rights said proposals to restrict demonstrations on the basis of noise were oppressive and wrong.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill would also create a new public nuisance offence, give the home secretary the power to define serious disruption, allow police to ban one-person protests and increase prison sentences for non-violent crimes related to demonstrations.

The government insists it is not clamping down on the right to demonstrate or violating human rights laws, but campaign groups have accused it of threatening the right to protest.

Polling by nfpSynergy, which was commissioned by the Liberty human rights group, found that 63 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: People should have the right to attend a protest to stand up for what they believe in.

A further 70 per cent agreed that people should be able to stand up to power and challenge injustice.

Asked whether they would be concerned about plans to criminalise protest, 62 per cent of respondents said they were and 28 per cent said they were not.

NfpSynergy polled 1000 adults between 30 March and 29 April for the research.

Libertys head of policy and campaigns, Sam Grant, said: These findings show that there is no appetite for the governments dangerous proposals, and widespread concern over such a broad attack on our rights. Those in power must listen to the chorus of opposition they are facing and scrap these plans.

Bristol riot: Police clash with protesters at Kill the Bill rally

By protecting our right to protest, we protect each other, safeguard our rights, and ensure we can all stand against oppression and injustice, and for a fairer society.

The proposed protest laws are contained within the wide-ranging Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny after being backed by MPs in March.

It has sparked a wave of demonstrations, including some that saw vandalism and violence against police officers, amid accusations that the government was stifling the right to protest.

Parliaments Joint Committee on Human Rights found that plans to allow police to restrict noisy demonstrations were not necessary in a democratic society and should be dropped.

Chair Harriet Harman said police already had access to perfectly adequate powers, and that protests themselves should be given explicit statutory protection in the law.

The report found that political rhetoric had been downplaying the importance of the right to peaceful protest and treating it as an inconvenience, and that public authorities should be reminded of their obligation to refrain from interfering unlawfully with the right to demonstrate.

In March, a report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary that was commissioned by Priti Patel found police had been tipping the balance too readily in favour of protesters, against disrupted businesses and members of the public.

People walk along Regent Street in central London during a #FreedomToDance march organised by Save Our Scene, in protest against the governments perceived disregard for the live music industry throughout the coronavirus pandemic

PA

A pair of marchers in a Trans Pride rally share a smile in Soho

Angela Christofilou/The Independent

Tim Duckworth during the Long Jump in the decathlon during day one of the Muller British Athletics Championships at Manchester Regional Arena

PA

A member of staff poses with the work 'The Death of Cash' by XCopy at the 'CryptOGs: The Pioneers of NFT Art' auction at Bonhams auction house in London

EPA

Bank of England Chief Cashier Sarah John displays the new 50-pound banknote at Daunt Books in London

Bank of England via Reuters

Actor Isaac Hampstead Wright sits on the newly unveiled Game of Throne's "Iron Throne" statue, in Leicester Square, in London, Tuesday, June 22, 2021. The statue is the tenth to join the trail and commemorates 10 years since the TV show first aired, as well as in anticipation for HBO's release of House of the Dragon set to be released in 2022

AP

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon receives her second dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine

AFP/Getty

Joyce Paton, from Peterhead, on one of the remaining snow patches on Meall aBhuiridh in Glencoe during the Midsummer Ski. The event, organised by the Glencoe Mountain Resort, is held every year on the weekend closest to the Summer Solstice

PA

England appeal LBW during day four of their Womens International Test match against India at the Bristol County Ground

PA

Scotland fans let off flares in Leicester Square after Scotland's Euro 2020 match against England ended in a 0-0 draw

Getty

Members of the Tootsie Rollers jazz band pose on the third day of the Royal Ascot horse racing meet

AFP/Getty

A woman and child examine life-size sculptures of a herd of Asian elephants set up by the Elephant Family and The Real Elephant Collective to help educate the public on the elephants and the ways in which humans can better protect the planets biodiversity, in Green Park, central London

AFP/Getty

Hydrotherapists with Dixie, a seven-year-old Dachshund who is being treated for back problems common with the breed, in the hydrotherapy pool during a facility at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home's in Battersea, London, to view their new hydrotherapy centre

PA

Scotland's David Marshall in the net after Czech Republic's Patrik Schick scored their second goal at Hampden Park

Reuters

Raheem Sterling celebrates with Harry Kane after scoring Englands first goal of the Euro 2021 tournament in a match against Croatia at Wembley

Reuters

Oxfam campaigners wearing costumes depicting G7 leaders pose for photographers on Swanpool Beach near Falmouth, Cornwall

EPA

Members of the Vaxinol team, who are commercial, industrial and residential cleaners specialising in disinfection and decontamination, use electrostatic spray systems to deep clean the Only Fools Bar in Liverpool

PA

A woman walks her dogs as the incoming tide begins to wash away the heads of G7 leaders drawn in the sand by activists on the beach at Newquay, Cornwall

AP

Adam Chamberlain, 45, general manager of Big Tree pub in Sheffield, has put up over 500 flags, taking 36 hours, in preparation for Euro 2020, which kicks off this weekend

Tom Maddick / SWNS

REUTERS

A pedestrian wearing a face covering walks over Westminster Bridge near the Houses of Parliament in central London

AFP/Getty

Isobel Salamon, founder of the Edinburgh Cinema Club, poses alongside the Leith Trainspotting murals in Quality Yard, Leith, Edinburgh, for the programme launch of the Cinescapes Festival which starts on July 4 with a Trainspotting 1 and 2 double bill

PA

A long exposure photograph captures the rotation of the earth as the stars blur into circles over Knowlton church ruins in Dorset

Nick Lucas/SWNS

Balloonists take flight during the opening of the Midlands Air Festival in Alcester, Warwickshire

PA

Members of the Household Cavalry during the Major General's annual inspection of the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment in Hyde Park, London

PA

Hannah Vitos of the Blenheim Art Foundation, poses for a photograph next to artist Ai Weiwei's Gilded Cage (2017) sculpture in the grounds of Blenheim Palace in Woodstock, Britain

Reuters

People swim in the Sky Pool, a transparent swimming pool bridge across two exclusive residential blocks standing next to the US Embassy in Nine Elms, in London, Tuesday, June 1, 2021

AP

People enjoy the hot weather at Brighton beach

Reuters

People venture into the sea as they enjoy themselves during a hot day on Brighton Beach

AP

Swimmers at the Stonehaven Open Air Pool in Aberdeenshire, which reopens after lockdown restrictions were eased

PA

Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson gestures as he meets Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban at Downing Street in London

REUTERS

White Pelicans in the sunshine in St James's Park, London

PA

Boats are seen at Southsea Moorings in Portsmouth

Reuters

York Glaziers Trust employees Kieran Muir (left) and Emily Price (right) remove a stained glass window panel at the start of a new five year, 5m project to conserve York Minsters South East Transept and its medieval St Cuthbert Window

PA

Dark rain clouds above an oast house at Bewl Water reservoir near Lamberhurst in Kent during one of the rainiest Mays on record, with the UK seeing 131 per cent of the usual months rainfall already

PA

The Premier League trophy with the Manchester City club colour ribbons on, at Etihad Stadium, prior to the last Premier League match of the season. City will finally pick up the trophy after they won the league on 11 May

Getty

Gary Kenny lifts the Buildbase FA Vase Trophy after Warrington Rylands won the FA Vase Final against Binfield at Wembley Stadium

Getty

A family buffeted by the wind whilst crossing the the Millennium Bridge in London, with wind and rain forecast to ravage the UK on the first Friday that people have been allowed to meet in large groups outside in England

PA

Devon And Cornwall Police Demonstrate Their Skills For Policing The G7 Summit

Getty Images

An employee stands before a costume for the Queen of Hearts by Bob Crowley on display at the Alice: Curiouser and Curiouser exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London

PA

Passengers prepare to board an easyJet flight to Faro, Portugal, at Gatwick Airport after the ban on international leisure travel for people in England was lifted following the further easing of lockdown restrictions in England

PA

Go here to read the rest:

Two thirds of public concerned by plans to criminalise protest, polling shows - The Independent

Premier Iain Rankin, members of the Pride Nova Scotia Government Employee Network, and other government representatives attended the raising of the Pride flag today, June 28, at Province House in Halifax.

Our government is committed to building a safe and caring province for all Nova Scotians, regardless of where they come from, how they pray, who they love or how they identify, said Premier Rankin. Raising the Pride flag at Province House represents our ongoing commitment and reminds us all of the work yet to be done.

The flag raising is an opportunity to reflect on the work that has been accomplished over the last five decades since the Stonewall riots in New York City, which were seen as a watershed event that kick-started the fight for equal rights in the gay community.

During the summer, virtual Pride events will be held in communities across the province.

"Today we celebrate the great work we're doing to become a more welcoming public service, said Public Service Commission Minister Ben Jessome. We want to ensure everyone feels safe and valued when they come to work so they are comfortable contributing their best ideas. Were stronger as a community and a province when we have a diverse and inclusive public service."

2SLGBTIQ+ people continue to face significant forms of oppression, including racism and transphobia, from outside and within our communities. Pride is a movement that believes that by acknowledging and addressing systemic barriers and embracing the many identities within our community, we can build something we can all be proud to be part of.Ian Mullan, chair, Pride Nova Scotia Network

Meaningful action on diversity, inclusion and equity is a priority in our public service.Andrea Anderson, Public Service commissioner

This year, we are raising the progress Pride flag with stripes that include the trans community and Black, Indigenous and people of colour, demonstrating that the 2SLGBTIQ+ community stands in solidarity to fight all forms of discrimination, harassment and violence.Laura Lee Langley, Head of the Public Service and deputy champion, Pride Nova Scotia Government Employee Network

-30-

Read more:

Pride Flag Raised in Halifax - Government of Nova Scotia

While the migrant crisis was the highlight of the first wave of the pandemic, unmasking the systemic failure of our economy in providing secure employment, the second wave brought to the fore the collapse of our health infrastructure. Instead of taking measured steps to deal with the shortages of oxygen cylinders, hospital beds, medicines, and vaccinations, governments conveniently chose to focus more on their election campaigning. Their ignorance towards the acute state of public hospitals and health centres has compelled common people to settle for private provision of healthcare. However, reports suggest that private nursing homes and hospitals are charging exorbitant prices for RT-PCR tests, hospital beds, and vaccines.

Severe dependence on the private sector, egged on by the government, points at the incapability of the latter to deal with a deteriorating global health crisis. It can safely be argued that with the majority of the people unable to afford the expensive health care provided by the private sector, the government has essentially left this significant fraction of the population to suffer in negligence.

A common perception is that, albeit expensive, the private sector is efficient in meeting the needs

of the people. On the other hand, public provision of services is expected to be inferior. The Indian Human Development Survey (IHDS 2011-12) data reveals the lack of confidence in public institutions. Only 9.74 per cent of the respondents reported that they have a great deal of confidence in politicians with regard to fulfilling promises made, with 50.68 per cent having no confidence at all. This glaring prevalence of mistrust that people have is not limited to the nearest agent of the State. While 71.83 per cent of the respondents believed that private schools provided quality education, the same for public schools was 59.11 per cent. Similarly, respondents showed greater conviction with regard to better treatment in private hospitals (72.46 per cent) than in government hospitals (54.45 per cent). These figures do not vary across income categories.

The data underscores the presumption regarding the governments inefficient provisioning of basic services of food, housing, education, and health. The incompetence of the government to provide these services sufficiently, which has prevailed through generations, has ingrained the idea of inefficiency of public institutions. The normalisation of this perception implies that instead of demanding accountability from the government for its shortcomings, people deem privatisation as the only alternative.

The goal of profit maximisation acts as an incentive for the private sector to be efficient. Consequently, when services like education and health are turned into marketable commodities, profit plays a major role in determining their distribution. This excludes the majority of citizens from availing these basic services, who are then exclusively dependent on the government for their provision. Rather than aiming at efficient provisioning of the services, the government yields greater ground to private capital to invest in the same, thereby underlining an added dimension of oppression faced by poor people. This in turn perpetuates inequality in every aspect of society. The perception that normalises the poor performance of government institutions also normalises inequality in the society.

We can turn to Antonio Gramscis work to explain this working of the State. Instead of coercion, the State manages to create consent in favour of privatisation. There is a need to question the government regarding the poor quality of provisioning of public services like education and health. While the government has shrugged off its responsibilities, it has moulded public perception and consequently, we keep clamouring for increased privatisation. In the Gramscian sense, the manufactured consent that public institutions are more inefficient than private institutions has become an ideology. According to the IHDS data cited here, even the poorest strata have more confidence that the private sector provides better quality of services, showing that the oppressed section of the society subscribes to the dominant ideology, which is also instrumental in perpetuating their oppression. Maintaining this ideology is particularly helpful for the State as it helps to preserve the dominance of private capital.

The production of certain goods and services like health and education are advised to be the exclusive domain of the government, because their distribution should not be driven by profit, but by welfare since these should constitute the basic rights of all people. In the current situation of pandemic, the need of the hour is universal vaccination. However, such a goal will never be achieved if profit is prioritised over welfare in the distribution of vaccines.

The writers are, respectively, a graduate student at Colorado State University and a Ph.D scholar at the Centre for Development Studies, Kolkata.

See the article here:

Privatisation a manufactured perception - The Statesman

Its no stretch to say that freedom of expression is a fundamental feature of a democratic society and yet few features of democracy are as contentious as freedom of expression. After all, subsumed within that right is the idea that such freedom must encompass not only expressions that we agree with, but also those that shock, offend or disturb us.

The internet, for all its ills, has been a boon in providing a way for traditionally marginalized groups to make themselves visible, to draw strength from those similarly situated and connect with sympathetic allies. This is why the internet and social media in particular has become a virtual public square for awareness campaigns and accountability movements. It has also become the venue of the corresponding backlash and counter-protests, as was inevitable. While the setting may be different, these are old battles fought under new names and an ever-lengthening number of hashtags. An integral part of our understanding of our individual human rights is that they can be limited by the rights of others. The key now, as then, is trying to find some guiding principle about where to draw the line.

This is particularly important in the realm of the law. While communities and cultures can and will argue about the bounds of proper or decent expression, about what is or is not censorship, the discussion evolves into something much different once the State and its laws are involved. In the Philippines and most other constitutional democracies, our legal right to freedom of expression in the Bill of Rights is specifically a protection against actions of the State which would infringe that right. When a private entity engages in improper censorship, for instance, this is a matter that may or may not have legal implications. When it is the State that engages in improper interference with speech, it violates the Constitution, the fundamental law of the land.

This is why when the State treads into the realm of prohibiting speech or expression, it must do so very carefully and very lightly. The reason that most democracies severely restrict the States ability to interfere with speech is to make it as difficult as possible for a State to fabricate pretexts to suppress speech that it disagrees with or finds contrary to its aims, including criticisms of its actions and policies. Freedom of speech and expression is one of the bulwarks of democracy because without that guarantee, it becomes all too easy for the powerful be that the State, organizations or even a tyrannical majority to disregard and trample upon the vulnerable, the marginalized and the minorities.

But its important to realize that speech itself can and has been used to oppress the vulnerable. Speech can be used to create and perpetuate structures of oppression sexism, racism, classism that cause real and direct harm to many.

What then is to be done if the State is to protect those most in need of its protection? The first step is that policy makers must realize that this is contested territory, that there will be no easy answers, no simple calculus to be able to determine the levels of protection appropriate for different types of speech. The second is to recognize the need to have a coherent rule or standard that can be applied to isolate speech that the State may have a valid interest in regulating.

This standard should not, in my opinion, be based on a feeling of offense. One of the most contentious types of speech is speech that offends religious feelings, but in my view in order for the State to be allowed to regulate the same, there must always an additional element involved and not just the emotional effect of the words. For instance, the method of expression the time and manner that the insulting words are conveyed may be taken into account, as well as whether or not the words constitute a threat or incitement to violence.

But in my view the feeling of offense is too subjective and personal to serve as a proper guide for determining the constitutionality of State intervention in speech. Each of us has the potential to take offense at a great many things the tenor of a bosss email, the rejection of a crush, the style of clothes a person wears and the sheer arbitrariness of such scope should disqualify a mere feeling of offense as a legal standard. Citizens should be capable of knowing when their actions or words might violate the law. But because of the subjective nature of what is offensive, one may not know when his words or actions are offensive to others. And a standard that is so subjective is one that can be easily bent towards oppression, as has occurred with blasphemy statutes in the past.

Yet when oppressive structures come into play, sometimes the feeling of offense is a sign that the offending words are creating real and immediate harm. The ability of social media to amplify even extremist voices has put the idea of hate speech under the spotlight. The idea that total freedom of speech will lead to the elimination of offensive speech through a marketplace of ideas has been shown to be flawed. After all, the speech marketplace is not an equal one, the ability to speak and be heard is not evenly distributed, and the position of those with less power cannot be equated with that of the powerful. A growing recognition of that is why anti-sexual harassment laws have finally been enacted around the world, and why when we were drafting the SOGIE Bill, we took pains to include speech as a means by which harassment may be committed.

The State in a liberal democracy should not be allowed to choose which conception of the good or ethical life is more valuable than another. But even if freedom of speech is integral to a democracy, so too is the creation of a fair and egalitarian society, which makes the protection of the vulnerable and the marginalized an essential duty. Balancing these two values is not an easy task, but for a government that is committed to its people, that balance should lie in uprooting oppression rather than outlawing offense.

View post:

Offense and oppression - Philstar.com

Dr. George Robinson| Special to The Times

Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people. Revolutionaries used this phrase to condemn churches for making people tolerate oppression while hoping for a better life after death. Revolutionaries offered utopia, but they built nations with oppression, imprisonment and slaughter.

The United States of Americawas founded on freedom. This freedom is built on the ideas that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government secures these rights and governs by consent of the governed. Pursuit of happiness is acting on personal conviction while respecting it in others, which guarantees it for all.

Our fledgling nation revolted against the most powerful nation on earth without destroying it. Our American experiment proves our founding ideals work.

Religion is the revelation of a power higher than humanity and validates these rights. It empowers, soothes and is the source of gratitude. We appeal to this higher power at birth, death, morning, evening, fasting, feasting, holidays, tragedies, starting sessions in Congress and on our money. Religion is part of American lifeof human life.

Is America perfect? No human endeavor is perfect, and the sins of the fathers influence the third and fourth generations. America is making progress living up to its ideals. The same goes for organized religion.

Slavery and racism are atrocities against the innocent and riddle human history. War, persecution, famine, poverty, economic failure and pandemics consume the innocent. Freedom of speech reveals humanitys mistakes. American ideals do not cause these problems. They are the best tools and guides to solve them. Benevolence and forgiveness are essential.

Does religion neglect lifes problems? The organized religions I know help us in life as much as hereafter because the two are connected. Churches give charity on a personal level while teaching self-reliance. They network to provide humanitarian aid globally.

Charity provides essential food, clothing and shelter,making education possible. Education begins in the family.(Proverbs 22:6) Vocational training or higher education deliver a good life. Religion promotes learning and wisdom(Proverbs 9:9-10), while it cautions against being too smart in your own conceits.(Romans 12:16)

It is no accident that our nation isNo. 1the world for charity per capita. Americans gave $450 billion in 2019;70% came from individuals.(Barrons) The South gave the highest percentage.(Philanthropy Roundtable)

The economics of religion teach that we must work to eat (by the sweat of your brow), for the sake of dignity. We reap what we sow. While it isOKto have a barn filled with the fruits of Gods earth, God is offended when we tear down the barn to build bigger ones instead of aiding those lacking the essentials of life.(Luke 12:16-21)

Religion ministers to the soul,which science and government cannot heal. Religion offers certain truths which we recognizeand the truth makes us free.

George Terry Robinson, MD, serves in the Gadsden Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Read the rest here:

PAPER PULPIT: Organized religion makes progress living up to ideals - Gadsden Times

Dear Reader (Including members of the Bailey Beach Club Diversity Committee who may suddenly be too busy to read this newsletter),

I want to talk to you about everything going on right now.

Unfortunately, according to Brandeis Universitys Prevention, Advocacy and Resource Centers Oppressive Language List, I just oppressed you.

See if you can figure out why. Ill wait. Give up?

Ill forgive you for not knowing this, but apparently the phrase everything going on right nowdamn, I did it to you againis oppressive. Why? Because, I defecate you negatory, Being vague about important issues risks miscommunication and can also avoid accountability. So, if I say, everything going on right now in reference to police brutality, or the pandemic, I might be letting our oppressors off the hook.

So let me be more specific. When I say everything going on right now, Im referring to garbage like this. And the last thing I want to do is let the people responsible for this linguistic oppression off the hook.

Some more examples:

Brandeis also wants you to stop using the term trigger warning because the word 'trigger' has connections to guns for many people; We can give the same heads-up using language less connected to violence.

The Federal Aviation Administration issued a report on how to deal with drones. Thats a legitimately important subject. Fortunately, they did such a bang up job solving all that, they had time left over to fix the oppressive language of aviation. The FAA Gender-Free Style Guide Recommendations appended to the report call for replacing he and she with they and them, airmen with air crew etc. They also want to do away with cockpit because on occasion masculine crew members have wielded the term cockpit to exclude or undermine femme coworkers.

The Biden White Houses budget proposal refersin one section at leastto people who have babies as birthing persons.

In a similar vein, in an essaynone dare call them op-eds anymorein todays New York Times, a transgender man writes:

We are, all of us, in a constant stage of negotiation with the political and cultural forces attempting to shape us into simple, translatable packages. Trans people, by necessity, are more aware of these forces; that fluency is a strength, and it has afforded us an opportunity to question the stories about the biology of gender that are so foundational to American culture: Do we all really want to co-sign the notion that a uterus, and thus reproductive potential, is how we define womanhood? When a nonbinary person births a child, why must the birth certificate dictate that the person who gave birth is a mother, and what does being a mother even mean, exactly? What might it mean for all parents if mother and father were not such distinct categories in child-rearing? Who benefits from their continuing separation?

Now, I just ranted about the above essay on TheRemnant (out tomorrow), so I dont want to recycle all that here. So let me start with this trigger warning thing to get me to my point.

I have no problem doing away with the phrase trigger warning. Im not a fan of the term or the idea behind it. But let me concede in the spirit of generosity and humility that one doesnt have to be categorical about this. Advising people in advance about disturbing content is perfectly fine with me. Movies have ratings and TV shows have parental advisories, and I find that not just defensible but helpful. Lots of shows depicting suicide these days come with a warning and help-line for those feeling suicidal. That seems like a better social compromise than banning depictions of suicide.

No, my main problem with the way trigger warnings have been deployed is the broadness and nature of what theyre warning about. My second biggest problem is that the science behind trigger warnings is garbage.

The systematic violence of the English language.

But thats not why Brandeis wants to get rid of the term. It thinks trigger is associated with violence. Okay, if were going to take that seriously, lets note that the word trigger derives from the Dutch word trekker, from which we get trek. Today, trek means a journey, but it originally meant to pull, like a wagon pulled by oxen (hence the evolution of the word). Trigger means something you pull; it may indeed be associated with violence, but only in the minds of people who make that association.

But if words associated with violence have to goMuadDib!there are far deadlier killing words out there. For instance, our political discourse is drenched in military language: battleground states, ad blitzes, taking flak, over the target, scorched earth, political crusade, pyrrhic victories, skirmish, belligerents, political ambushes, nuclear options, war on poverty, etc.

In fact, our entire language is littered with the corpses of dead metaphorswords and phrases that no longer mean what they once did because we forgot where they came from.

Hotshot is derived from heated ordnance used to set fire to enemy ships. When football players go over the top, its an homage to trench warfare from World War I. So are phrases like in the trenches and no mans land. If I tell my daughter to get moving on the double, Im using the language of war preparation.

Now, because Im a logophile, I dig this stuff.

But in this context, Im perfectly willing to ask, So frickn what? If youre working freelance you dont mean youre a medieval mercenary willing to fight for whichever side pays you enough. Im writing this on deadline, which means I have to deliver it by a specific time. But deadline was born as a Civil War term for the border around a military prison that you could be shot without warning if you crossed. Nobody tell the folks at MSNBC that their show Deadline: White House is steeped in the language of incarceration and total war.

Words change versus changing words.

Now, if youre a clever sort, you might argue that Im making the same point as the folks playing word games. After all, you could say, Sure, trigger used to mean X, but now some people think it means Y, and the new meaning is trigger I mean, disturbing.

But is it? Ive never met anyone who felt aggressed against when I said something like, Lets pull the trigger on this. Are we going out for Mexican or Chinese?

Ill happily concede that such people must exist, but who died and made them the bosses of everybody? Moreover, assuming these people exist, how many of them are looking to find a reason to be offended? If there are 10,000 people in America who feel oppressed by the term trigger, Id guess 9,950 of them are the kind of people who walk the earth looking for reasons to be a pain in the ass. Indeed, thats one of the problems with trigger warning culture: It trains people to be pains in the ass because it incentivizes the practice of taking offense by rewarding people with power and attention. Victimhood is powerful these days.

This is why newsrooms and universities are infestedsorry if that word offends youwith little linguistic Maoists searching out reasons to take offense. And its why every day we get manufactured outrages. The Pharisees at the Brandeis Prevention, Advocacy and Resource Center have a business model designed around the idea of constantly scouring the language for reasons to take offense. And that Orwellian model requires constantly changing acceptable language to catch people for being offensive.

The Mother of All Asininities

And thats the real problem: This war on oppressive language is itself oppressive. The organic evolution of language from below is inherently small-d democratic. Its undirected, emergent, and unavoidable.

Using the commanding heights of the culture, never mind the power of the federal government, to bully and shame people out of using the term mother is oppressive. Its an imposition from above. Its also staggeringly, awe-inspiringly stupid.

Lets start with oppression. Cultural erasure is a hot topic these days. And you know whats a deeply embedded concept in many culturesincluding our own? Mothers. (Its also a pretty deeply embedded concept in medicine, biology, and science generally, which is something to keep in mind when you hear these people say, I believe in science.)

Im honestly offended that I have to explain this. Ask any black, Hispanic, Irish, Italian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, or literally any other normal person, and theyll tell you what mother means to them, both personally and as a concept. Even for people who hate their mothers, motherhood is a powerful thing (if it werent, they probably wouldnt hate their mothers). In my experience, the people who invest the most meaning in motherhood are colloquially known as mothers. But its really not limited to them.

The phrase, as American as apple pie allegedly gained widespread popularity as as American as motherhood and apple pie during World War II. Reporters would ask American soldiers what they were fighting for, and a common response was, For mom and apple pie.

Then theres Mother Nature, and oh, forget it. I refuse to keep going. Putting me in the position of having to explain that motherhood is central to vast oceans of culture, faith, literature, language, norms, laws, and other concepts in which virtually all human civilizations are rooted is infuriating.

We didnt get rid of the term mother to spare the feelings of orphans or homosexual couples. Why invest in transgender people and their sense of grievance and discomfortas sincere and real as it may bethe moral authority to erase all of that?

Im not advocating cruelty toward transgender people asking to get rid of the word mother. But I am saying that the answer should be an emphatic, albeit polite, No. Thats not going to happen.

The answer should be No on the merits: 99 percent of society should not be held hostage to the feelings of 1 percent (a generous enumeration of their representation in the population, by the way). Motherhood is too important, too entrenched, and too meaningful to get rid of. Especially when you consider that the word and concept was here first and was never intended to give offense. If I move to a country that drives on the left side of the road, I dont get to scream that Im being oppressed by having to adjust accordingly. Admittedly, trans people arent literal immigrants. But they are essentially new arrivals culturally. Showing a little deference to the supermajority culture isnt too much to ask.

And, as I noted on TheRemnant, if youve spent the last 30 years hearing feminists and Handmaids Tale fans denounce conservatives for reducing women to mere breeders, Id like to know why calling them birthing persons is some great victory.

Again, you dont have to be opposed to everything the language police are doing. I for one think removing the term niggardly from everyday parlance is no great loss, even if the word has nothing to do with the homonymic racial epithet. But intent does matter. The FAAs linguistic commissars want to get rid of cockpit because on occasion masculine crew members have wielded the term cockpit to exclude or undermine femme coworkers. Maybe they should just put more energy into disciplining people who use cockpit in an offensive way? I mean, the kind of person determined to harass women with the word cockpit will not be left powerless to continue doing so if you mandate the use of flight deck instead. If anything, taking away the word creates opportunities for fresh cockpit jokesLets call it the gelded pit! Also, that way, you wont have to use idiotic adjectives like masculine and femme to describe crew members. I mean, who knew Luca Brasi was so far ahead of his time?

Turning mother into an offensive or even simply antiquated term is unfair and unjustified cultural oppression, exploiting the admirable American desire to treat people decently. Simply put: Its asking too much.

Which brings us to the stupidity of all this. The answer should be No for another reason: Its never going to happen. People arent going to stop using the term. And because its never going to happen, good and decent progressives, sympathetic to the struggles of trans people, should pull them aside and tell them, Look, that dog wont hunt. Pick your battles.

And they should say this to trans allies for their own sake. Nobody is going to go nuts if individual trans people refer to their own utero-American spawning vessels as birthing persons. But if you want to invite a backlash against trans people, start hectoring and bullying people to refer to their own mothers as birthing people. Start correcting old ladies who gush about how much they love being a grandmother, Excuse me, thats offensive! You are a grandbirthingperson!

See how that goes for your cause.

Lets concede the whole of the argument: Enlightened people should abandon the word mother entirely. Well, if Joe Biden and the Democrats energetically campaigned on eliminating the concept of motherhood in 2020, Donald Trump would be president today and Republicans would have comfortable majorities in Congress. What Im saying here isnt merely criticism, its constructive criticism.

By all means, youre free to fall back on the time-honored progressive practice of rolling your eyes at conservatives making too big a deal out of some PC tempest in a teapot. But this smug, hand-waving response misses how politics works. These stories arent isolated, theyre cumulative. The backlash against critical race theory may seem sudden, but it built up over decades. Standing against political correctness has gotten many a Republican elected because all of these dots in the cultural landscape form a picture a lot of people dont likeand for good reason.

Youre free to describe yourself however you like. Thats freedom. But relentless language policing is culturally oppressive, and its no less so even if, in an unwitting homage to Herbert Marcuse, you claim youre doing it to fight oppression.

Various & Sundry

Canine update: All is well with the beasties. But I dont have too much to report because I was gone for most of the week. I even had to post reruns on my Twitter account. I did get to chase the Dingo on Monday, which is always fun. The only big news development this weekand its big according to canine journalistic standardsis that the Fair Jessica has issued a fatwa that the girls dinner be boring for a while. Normally, we chop up some protein, leftover chicken or steak and put it on top of the kibble. The girls were getting blas about it, so Jess has put them on a straight kibble dinner regimen until their sense of entitlement abates. Theyre not happy about it. Theyve talked to their union rep, theyve filed formal grievances etc. The only glimmer of hope is that TFJ leaves for a drive to Utah tomorrow, leaving me in charge of their menu. No word on how I will deal with this issue.

ICYMI

Last Fridays G-File

Last weekends drive-time Ruminant, featuring a farewell to Mr. Nick Pompella

The weeks first Remnant, with poverty expert (and Brookings sympathizer) Scott Winship

The war over CRT continues to irritate

The members-only midweek G-File on progressive kookery surrounding In the Heights, written from the Oklahoma wilds

The weeks second Remnant, a supplemental episode on separation of church and state

The case for humility in politics

And now, the weird stuff

How deep is your love?

Fishy dealings at Subway

Relationship goals

Not quite what William Peter Blatty had in mind, but

The Midwestern sensibility

California, rest in peace

Love, Ukranian style

Correction, June 26: Yes, we know the headline should have asked, Whos Oppressing Whom,? not Whos Oppressing Who? Wed like to say it was a tribute to Aretha Franklin, but it had more to do with Friday rush hour. Thank you to our Twitter copy editors.

Original post:

Who's Oppressing Whom? - The Dispatch

Text Size:A- A+

New Delhi: PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti said on Sunday the dialogue process initiated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Jammu and Kashmirs mainstream leadership can gain credibility by ending what she called an era of oppression and suppression in the union territory and understanding that a dissenting voice is not a criminal act.

Give the people right to breathe and rest will follow later, the former chief minister said, as she termed the prime ministers meeting with a 14-member delegation from J and K here on Thursday as a way forward to end the sufferings of people in the erstwhile state now under central rule.

Mehbooba, who was part of the delegation, made it clear that the onus was on the Centre to make the dialogue process credible, and said it should initiate confidence building measures and allow people to breathe and also ensure protection of jobs and land for the people.

When I say allow people to breathe, I mean that today any dissenting note from any side has to cool his or her heels in the prison. Recently, a man was jailed for expressing his sentiments that he had lots of hope from a Kashmiri advisor. The concerned Deputy Commissioner ensured that he was in jail for a few days despite being granted bail by the court, Mehbooba told PTI in an interview here.

So, when the prime minister says that he wants to eradicate Dil ki doori, such kind of suppression has to come to an end immediately, she added. At the landmark meeting, Prime Minister Modi had said he wants to remove Dilli ki doori (distance from Delhi) as well as Dil ki doori (distance between hearts) in an effort to bring Delhi closer to the people of J and K.

Dil ki doori has to be decreased with the people of Jammu and Kashmir and for that all the draconian orders passed have to stop. The jobs and land rights have to be protected, the PDP president said.

First and foremost, the era of suppression and oppression has to come to an end and the government has to understand that a dissenting voice is not a criminal act. The entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, and I will refer to it only as a state, has become a jail, she said.

The 62-year-old Mehbooba, who was the last chief minister of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir before abrogation of its special status on August 5, 2019, emphasised that among other measures required as confidence building measures were providing relief to the tourism and trading community of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh regions.

On August 5, 2019, mainstream politicians including Mehbooba, Farooq Abdullah, his son Omar and others were taken under preventive detention. The senior Abdullah was the first to be slapped with the controversial Public Safety Act(PSA), followed by Omar and Mehbooba. The PSA against Abdullah senior was revoked in March last year and in the same month Omar was also set free. However, Mehbooba was released only in October last year.

Maintaining that she took part in the Delhi talks only to apprise the central leadership of problems faced by the people, Mehbooba said, I have not come for any power politics as my stand is clear that I will not contest any elections until the special status of Jammu and Kashmir is restored.

Since the invite was from the prime minister, I took it as an opportunity to highlight the suffering of people post August 5, 2019 when Article 370 was scrapped and bifurcation of state was done unconstitutionally. Article 370 of the Constitution gave special status to J and K. On August 5, 2019, the border state was bifurcated into union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

Mehbooba also reiterated that she would not contest elections if J and K remained a union territory.

I have made it clear many times that I would not contest any elections under the Union Territory, but at the same time my party is also aware of the fact that we will not yield political space to anyone. We contested the District Development Council elections held last year, she said.

Similarly, if elections are announced for the assembly, the party would sit and discuss.

The 14-member delegation not only met the prime minister, but also Union Home Minister Amit Shah and senior bureaucrats. Besides Mehbooba, the other former chief ministers who were part of the delegation were Farooq Abdullah, Ghulam Nabi Azad and Omar Abdullah.

Also read: Dont make Kashmir guinea pig for experiments, says Ghulam Nabi Azad in Rajya Sabha

Senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad expressed optimism that the Centre would not reject the demand of the mainstream political parties in Jammu and Kashmir for restoration of statehood before the polls, adding the union territory status of the erstwhile state was not acceptable to anyone.

One thing was there that everybody was asked to speak frankly. I think all the leaders spoke very frankly and the important thing is there was no ill will towards anyone, Azad, a former chief minister, told PTI in an interview.

Azad, 72, said he had made it clear at the meeting that the union territory status of Jammu and Kashmir is not acceptable for which every political leader extended support. Besides Azad, three other former chief ministers Farooq Abdullah, Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti were also part of the multi-party delegation.

So, we have made our point clear. The only thing that we wanted was that first statehood should be restored and then elections should be held. Of course, they (Centre) have not responded but a joint stand of all the political parties was that first statehood should be granted, full-fledged statehood, and then it should be followed by elections, Azad said.

Asked what are the chances that the Centre would agree to the statehood first demand, Azad, who was leader of the Opposition in Rajya Sabha, said he was optimistic, asserting at least they have not said no.

And I think things have changed now. The amount of time the prime minister gave, the words he used that forget the past now. And the meeting gave a great opportunity to understand concerns and issues, he added. The meeting had lasted for nearly three-and-a-half hours.

I think the way the prime minister spoke saying that forget the past and we have to bring peace and build new bridges of confidence between Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir is important.

Azad said the prime minister made it clear that he would like the politics to be run by all those political parties who were present and that he would extend cooperation.

I dont think that the prime minister will do or the home minister will do anything contrary to that which is not acceptable to them (politicians from J-K).

Former deputy chief ministers Tara Chand, Nirmal Singh, Kavinder Gupta and Muzaffar Baigh were also present at the Thursday meeting along with veteran CPM leader Mohammed Yusuf Tarigami, Congress chief of JK G A Mir, Peoples Conference chief Sajad Lone, Panthers party chief Bhim Singh and BJP leaders Ravinder Raina and Jammu and Kashmir Apni party chief Altaf Bukhari. PTI

Also read:PM Modi assures early election & statehood to J&K in first attempt to break ice in 22 months

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

Read more from the original source:

Dialogue with PM Modi will gain credibility after era of oppression ends in J&K, Mehbooba Mufti says - ThePrint

The UK has sold arms and military equipment to two-thirds of countries slammed for their dire record on human rights and civil liberties, according to a new report.

Between 2011 and 2020, the UK licensed 16.8 billion of arms to 39 countries castigated by Freedom House, a US government-funded human rights group, for theirpoor record on political and human rights, British daily newspaperThe Guardianreportedon Sunday.

The London-based Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) also found that during the same period, 11.8 billion of arms had been authorized by the British government to countries on the Foreign Offices own list of repressive regimes.

The British Department for International Trade has also identified nine countries, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt, as core markets for arms exports. The countries have been widely criticized for human rights abuses.

Right now, UK-made weapons are playing a devastating role in Yemen and around the world. The arms sales that are being pushed today could be used in atrocities and abuses for years to come, said Andrew Smith of the CAAT.

Wherever there is oppression and conflict there will always be arms companies trying to profit from it, and complicit governments helping them to do so, Smith said.

Saudi Arabia and its regional allies, emboldened by Western powers weapons and support, launched a deadly military campaign against Yemen in March 2015 to reinstall the former Riyadh-friendly Yemeni President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

The war which they claimed would last only a few weeks but is still ongoing has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including women and children, and destroyed much of Yemens infrastructure.

Throughout the campaign, the British government kept up arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite widespread reports that the weapons are being used against civilians.

The UK has sold combat aircraft, helicopters, drones, grenades, bombs and missiles to Riyadh, with most weapons licensed via the opaque and secretive Open License system.

According to Sarah Waldron of the CAAT, UK-made weapons have been central to a bombardment that has destroyed schools, hospitals and homes and created the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.

Many of these sales are going to despots, dictatorships and human rights abusing regimes. They havent happened by accident. None of these arms sales would have been possible without the direct support of Boris Johnson and his colleagues, Smith added.

Back in February, Oxfam, an international charity organization,warnedthat British arms sales to Saudi Arabia could prolong the war in Yemen.

The UK is ramping up its support for the brutal Saudi-led war by increasing arms sales and refueling equipment that facilitate airstrikes, said Sam Nadel, head of policy and advocacy at Oxfam.

Read this article:

UK sold about 17bn of weapons to two-thirds of 'rights abusers' - Tehran Times