Category Archives: Government Oppression

A stone monument with a portrait of late journalist Kenji Nagai and a design representing his video camera is seen in Imabari, Ehime Prefecture, on Sept. 7, 2022. (Mainichi/Yasutoshi Tsurumi)

IMABARI, Ehime -- Sept. 27 marks the 15th anniversary of the day Japanese video journalist Kenji Nagai was shot dead in Myanmar by the military regime's security forces while he was covering a protest.

The Myanmar military has still not offered an apology to the family of Nagai, who was aged 50 at the time of his death in September 2007, and his video camera also remains confiscated. In Myanmar, the military seized power following a coup in 2021, derailing the country's democratic transition. Meanwhile, the truth behind the fatal incident is yet to be uncovered.

In early September, Nagai's younger sister Noriko Ogawa, 62, quietly put her hands together in prayer at a cemetery in the west Japan city of Imabari, Ehime Prefecture. "It has become an age where many young people do not know you. As long as I'm alive, I will not give up getting to the bottom (of your death)."

Ogawa said that for the past 15 years, she "lived while suppressing anger." Her mother Michiko Nagai, who passed away in 2013 at age 80, had demanded that the Myanmar government "immediately return the camera gripped by 'Kenbo' (nickname for 'Kenji') until the end."

Pro-democracy forces led by Aung San Suu Kyi formed a new government in 2016, and Ogawa hoped this would lead to progress on her brother's case. She sent a letter via an acquaintance, but did not receive a clear answer. The situation took a turn for the worse following the military coup in February 2021. In July 2022, four pro-democracy activists convicted of political crimes were executed. Ogawa said, shoulders drooping, "My brother's situation is utterly hopeless now." She showed sympathy toward documentary filmmaker Toru Kubota, who remains detained by the Myanmar military's security forces after covering a demonstration against the military. Ogawa said, "I pray that he can come home safely."

Meanwhile, Win Kyaw, 57, who escaped from Myanmar to Japan in 1989 and attended Nagai's funeral in Tokyo in October 2007, praised the late journalist's efforts, saying, "There are many Burmese people who know Kenji Nagai even today. His death directed the world's attention to Burma. He continues to live within me as a hero."

Win Kyaw uses social media during his free time to collect information on the Myanmar military's acts of oppression against the people following the 2021 coup. He has been sending videos and photos showing the military's violent and brutal acts to the United Nations.

On Sept. 27, the anniversary of Nagai's death, the state funeral for former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was held. The Japanese Foreign Ministry invited delegates from Myanmar, a gesture effectively extended to only the military, excluding the pro-democracy side. Win Kyaw criticized the Japanese government, and commented, "Many citizens of Burma are fighting without yielding to the military's violence in order to restore democracy. Inviting the military contradicts the state funeral's principle of protecting democracy (claimed by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida)."

According to the Assistance Association of Political Prisoners, 2,316 people have been killed and 12,464 people remained in detention by Sept. 23, 2022, amid military crackdowns since the coup in February 2021.

According to the BBC and other sources, state guests from Myanmar were not invited to the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II on Sept. 19.

(Japanese original by Yasutoshi Tsurumi, Matsuyama Bureau)

Here is the original post:

Family still seeking truth 15 years after killing of Japanese journalist in Myanmar - The Mainichi - The Mainichi

Vladislav Starodubtsev: Thank you for inviting me. Its great to see you here.

Bill Fletcher: I want to just start with, what is the current situation? We get various reports in mainstream media, and Im interested both in terms of your look at the war, but also whats happening within Ukraine itself with the Ukrainian government?

Vladislav Starodubtsev: Okay, I will probably start from afar. Once the war started, actually the day before, Russian officials called to the Ukrainian parliament and said that they want a complete surrender of Ukraine to Russia. Ukrainian officials said to them that we will wait a few months for the complete surrender of Russia. On the next day, there was a parliamentary brief where Zelevsky gathered all the politicians of all parties, all the military personal and high government officials, and they were preparing for the invasion the next day.

Russians tried to capture Ukraine for a week, and US and European officials, at the day of the invasion, were calling Zelenskyy and people in parliament and asking them to leave to safety and abandon Kyiv, but as we see now in the six months after the invasion, nothing like this happened, and all the Western governments that were saying that Ukraine will fall in three days just completely failed and cannot understand what to do now.

In this situation, Ukraine still fights and resists Russian occupation, and today theyre starting a new counter-offensive to liberate [inaudible] from the occupation. Its a lot more Ukrainians are doing a lot more than people from the West and general politicians expected from them. Actually, we are showing great resistance to the occupation.

But of course the war creates a lot of problems, a lot of social problems, a lot of political problems that we need to be honest with. What the Zelenskyy government does is absolutely awful and creates a lot more social instability [inaudible] in times of war by using the situation as a pretext for attacking the rights of trade unions, of the people who are in precarious conditions, attacking of housing rights, of social rights, depriving of basic social securities for the needs of advancing their market fundamentalist ideology.

This creates a lot of social tensions in Ukraine. A few weeks ago, there were a few laws adopted that just completely harm the rights of trade unions to defend their workers, and a few laws that introduced zero-hour contracts that actually deprives the right of eight-hour working days and the right to have minimum wage and stable working conditions.

At the same time, they are progressing privatization laws. They are even privatizing the [inaudible] industry, so in times of war, where war economy is needed and social dialogue and social stability is absolutely necessary to enforce, they are pushing for awful neoliberal reforms.

Bill Fletcher: Well, let me ask you this. It may be a naive question. But picking up on your last point, at a point where this invasion remains underway, why is the Zelenskyy government carrying out policies that, in effect, will destabilize Ukraine?

Vladislav Starodubtsev: I think its more ideological. They believe that theyre doing good stuff, that this policy should be done in times of war, and even before the war. They have this very market fundamentalist worldview, that everything could be solved by the market hand, and if you just let the market do everything, it will be done. Of course its absolutely not working. Its actually collapsing the country in real time. Theyre doing tax cuts, prioritization, and cuts to the workers rights, but theyre trying to push for their agenda to the final. Theyre actually using the situation of the war to push for the most horrible reforms in economic democracy and trade union rights that were introduced a few years ago, that they failed to push at that time. For them its a possibility to achieve their vision of Ukraine. I wouldnt say that its a pretty good vision, especially in times of war. Its absolutely compromising the Ukrainian defense.

Bill Fletcher: Now, as you know when the Theres been what I think to be a sort of strange response to the Russian invasion on the part of many leftists and progressives in the West, including but not limited to in the United States. When the Russians invaded Ukraine, I thought it was obviously a settled question that the Russians were the aggressors and everybody should oppose that and support the Ukrainian resistance. But a different set of different views began to surface. Im curious how you and other Ukrainians look at this phenomenon within different left and progressive circles in the West, of some people actually supporting the invasion, others essentially adopting the point of view of Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, and insisting on what the terms of a settlement should be. Very different points of view about whether the United States or anyone else should provide arms to Ukraine, and people are all over the place. Im wondering how you and your organization and others view this phenomenon.

Vladislav Starodubtsev: I would say that 99% of the left and general Ukrainian society have only one opinion on all of these issues. Theyre, of course, supporting Ukraine for the fight to total victory, and for the, of course, sending heavy weapons to Ukraine, to Ukrainian resistance, because its a question of survival. Its a question of their democratic rights, of their national rights, and of their lives in general, of being able to live a peaceful life, not in the horrible fascist occupation.

Of course, all these debates, theyre just awful. A few days ago, I think yesterday, there was an event organized by Democratic Socialists of America, these very random people that have no legitimacy to talk about Ukraine, that were talking the same thing about peace negotiation, about US aggression, proxy war, that actually just denigrates any opinion of the Ukrainian population and what we are thinking, and tries to speak over our heads to ensure their word views and political agenda. Its, of course, absolutely awful.

This situation, I would say, is very colonial thinking, that only the US has some subjectivity in world politics. Even Russians cannot do it, or the Russian state, cannot do anything without their subjectivity. Theyre only reacting to the actions of the US government or other Western governments. These views denie a possibility of states to do independent politics and be imperialist without any relations to the US, and kind of justifies those aggressions on the US. But of course, its absolutely untrue.

Such people are actually arguing for peaceful settlement with Russian imperialism, thinking that if theyre compromising with the fascists, they will build a more progressive world order. Theyre, for some reason, thinking that building the world based on the rule of the strongest and based on the multipolar imperialists [inaudible] for world power. Its actually a more progressive and democratic world that we have right now, but there is nothing progressive in the multipower world of multiple imperialism. Theres nothing progressive in the world where a status quo can be destroyed by the rule of the strongest against the weakest nations. There is no anything progressive or democratic, and that these beliefs and views are the same as Henry Kissinger should tell something to the left, especially the American left.

Bill Fletcher: One of the principal arguments that you hear is that the NATO expansion into Eastern Europe was what provoked Putin, and that had there not been a NATO expansion and had there not been discussions within Ukraine about the possibility of entering NATO, that none of this wouldve happened. How do you respond to that?

Vladislav Starodubtsev: There was a NATO in Chechnya, but no, of course, but Russia still went to war with the Chechnyan people and so destroyed their countries, actually two times, and they werent needing any NATO expansion for this. But for some reason for now, everyone believes that Russia is a peaceful actor that only defended itself from, I dont know This image of NATO expansion is absolutely untrue.

Ukraine actually never, ever after its independence, had any war. It didnt have an army and didnt have any aggressive ambitions against Russia or any other countries. Ukraine even gave its nuclear arsenal Its the second country in the world that denuclearized all their nuclear arsenal just to show that its a peaceful country that doesnt want any conflict, while Russia attacked Georgia, attacked Chechnya, and now attacking Ukraine from 2014, and theyre using different explanations for all of this.

Chechnya, for example, was an integral part of the Russian republic. Georgia was a [inaudible] people. Ukraine was actually the A multiplier argument. Thats Ukrainians nation shouldnt exist, that Ukrainians are As an ideology. Theyre talking about Ukrainians as ideology, not as a nation Is hostile to the ideal of Russia, that Russian people are somehow oppressed in Ukraine and so on and so on. Theyre using multiple arguments just trying to appeal to any authors they can possibly do. To the far right, to the far left, to centrists, and so on and so on.

But the fact of what theyre doing now, theyre doing complete justification of occupied cities.

Theyre prohibiting any Ukrainian [inaudible] of occupied cities. Theyre the stronghold of Ukrainian [inaudible] and all Ukrainian teachers that are teaching in Ukraine are prohibited in occupied regions. Theyre doing [inaudible] and oppression, killing people for engaging in Actually their [inaudible] of their democratic rights. Their repressing trade unions and so on, is the reaction to the [inaudible] itself. Its really a country that wants to defend itself and would attack and enforce their culture, enforce radical assimilation politics, and kill thousands of people to defend itself. Is it really a realistic argument? Is this? I think no.

Bill Fletcher: Putin has made a number of threats, implied and, actually quite explicitly, regarding nuclear weaponry and the potential use of tactical and maybe even strategic nuclear weapons. There are those that say that US military support to Ukraine simply prolongs this conflict and brings us closer to a nuclear exchange. How would you respond to that?

Vladislav Starodubtsev: I would respond very easily, that if you always compromise with fascist powers and dictators, you will come to the period that there will be nothing to compromise left. If you want to stop a fascist terrorist state that is engaged in genocides, just by feeling that it could continue to do horrible things and completely continue to do aggressions, they will continue to do this. They will have all carte blanche to go for the other countries, to go for Poland, to go for Baltic states, and just expand farther and farther. This argument that says that if you want to stop Russia, if you will give weapons to Ukraine, that it could promote nuclear war and escalation and problems and conflicts, it just shows that people want to compromise with fascist states and compromise their Actually not their, but freedom of other people, to appease the dictatorship and the fascist regime that have as its ideology expansion and occupation of foreign territories. With such compromises, itll be giving a very strong signal to the world that any state can expand and attack any state that they want if they have nuclear weapons.

Is it a correct argument for abolishing nuclear weapons? It just gives a lot more privileges to the states that already have them. It creates the world order, as I said, based on the rule of strongest and based on the rule of the countries that have nuclear weapons. Its actually not helping to de-escalate everything. It only gives a carte blanche for continuing such actions for forever. Because if you dont give any answer to this, these powers will just continue to invade and show other countries that there is such a possibility to attack bigger states.

Bill Fletcher: Let me ask you one final question, and its something thats been rolling around in my head since I interviewed professor Noam Chomsky a few months ago. In effect, he said that, while he opposed the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that there was very little that we in the United States, progressives, could do to influence Putin, but what we could do is influence the Biden administration, the United States government, and put pressure on them to not expand the war. That was essentially his orientation. It led me to wonder several things that went beyond what he was raising, and one is, what is it that you and other Ukrainian leftists would recommend? What would you like progressives, liberals, leftists in the United States to be doing now that theyre not doing to support Ukraines right to existence?

Vladislav Starodubtsev: Theres been a war going on already for six months. A lot of people in the West are tired of speaking about Ukraine over and over again. Theyre thinking that their countries or their governments already sent too much weapons, gave too much help to Ukraine, and that its a settled question, but in reality, the Ukrainian army is absolutely, the Soviet army has some equipment dating to the 50s of the last century. There are some artillery shells made during Stalin times. And of course such an army couldnt effectively resist the second largest army in the world.

What the left should do, its actually what left all throughout history did. Its supporting oppressed people and oppressed nations, and giving them the right to resist and to fight against the oppression. In this situation, the most empowering and emancipational thing is to demand sending more weapons to Ukraine, heavy weapons, artillery, tanks, planes that are empowering Ukrainian people, a weak nation, oppressed nation, to fight for their rights for existence, and to put an end of the world order that is based on the rule of the strongest, of imperialism, and of military aggressions.

Defending Ukraine, at the moment, is defending democratic rights in all of the world, and actually defending the world order, because if Ukraine will fall, and there will be no strong answer from any of the world powers, it means that any other country could do something like this. Turkey can destroy all its opponents, continue invasion to [inaudible] and so and so on, and continue their military aggression in all other states, for example. China can do something [inaudible] Taiwan, Serbia, and Kosovo. So it creates a carte blanche for the world to be a lot more dangerous and a lot more authoritarian than it was ever before. Practically, the left wing should oppose this and do everything for Russia to lose this war. It includes sending weapons and adopting the most heavy sanctions on the Russian state that will hamper the war economy and wont allow the Russian state to pay wages for their military personnel, for the workers that are working in the plants that are producing tanks and other military equipment.

The most important thing to do is to agitate for the weapons and agitate for the sanctions, to continue pressure from the grassroots organizations and popular movements, and for the government to adopt such positions. The fact that governments are still supporting Ukraine, its not because theyre very altruistic, very democratic, and so on and so on. Its because popular opinion is with Ukraine. They cant just ignore this issue. All of their governments, US, even Britain, wanted to sell Ukraine. They didnt adopt any strong sanctions in 2014 and they didnt provide any help, practical help, in 2014. The first [inaudible] Ukraine, absolutely imperialist Minsk agreement, and continued business as usual with Russia. They are trading arms with Russia, theyre doing their capitalist cooperation, and now theyre just waiting for any possibility to continue this cooperation. For there to be any possibility at all, trading with fuel and gas with Russia, trading arms with Russia, and so on.

The things that the left should do is to pressure, from the popular movements, their governments, the same governments that wanted to sell to Ukraine in the first three days of the invasion and were calling Zelenskyy to move to leave and just to [inaudible] war, to pressure their governments to support Ukraine, and continue to support until the Ukrainian people will have their total victory.

20 September 2022

Source: The Real News Network.

Read more:

One Ukrainian democratic socialists opinion on the war - International Viewpoint

Numerous books and articles published in recent years have deplored the condition of American higher education. On the one hand, costs keep outpacing inflation by a wide margin. On the other, questions are increasingly raised about the quality of what students and parents are getting for their money. Outside the STEM fields, in which our colleges and universities continue to excel, newspapers regularly highlight students who, having majored in subjects broadly called the "humanities" at prestigious and costly schools, find themselves unable to obtain gainful employment in their field of interestand hence to repay the hefty loans they may have taken out to finance their education (at least without the benefit of Joe Biden's federal bailout). Finally, a large proportion of our institutions of higher learning have succumbed to politicization: Many faculty use their courses as occasions for partisan indoctrination, syllabi are subject to censorship or "trigger warnings" for potentially offending various designated "minorities," visiting speakers are harassed or disinvited if they express dissenting points of view, and students report being "canceled" by their classmates for violating politically correct taboos.

In Part I of The Death of Learning, John Agresto acknowledges the force of each of the foregoing criticisms. But the greatest value of his book lies in its second part, devoted to the theme of "Redeeming and Reconstructing Liberal Education." While scolding the snobbery of societal elites toward fellow citizens who don't pursue a college degree, instead entering the working world directly, Agresto aims to defend the value of a genuinely liberal education, not only for the individual who receives it, but for his country. But to do this requires reconceptualizing the nature and meaning of liberal education.

Agresto is uniquely qualified to undertake this task. Having taught political philosophy at several prominent colleges and universities and authored five books (some dealing with the American constitutional tradition and the role of the Supreme Court), he held a senior position at the National Endowment for the Humanities before serving as president for 11 years at St. John's College in Santa Fe (one of two campuses of America's premier "great books" school). He capped his formal academic career by serving as senior adviser for higher education to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, where he held the positions of dean, provost, and chancellor of the American University there.

In his preface Agresto identifies several incidents that provided the impetus for this book. The first was his dissatisfaction with the contributions to a volume he once edited on the "uses" of the humanities. Those essays suffered from the "conceit" that "the liberal arts have no uses'" and lack any purpose than themselves; that they have no role, in particular, in promoting good citizenship; and that "true" humanistic scholarship must be "narrowly focused and academic" rather than broadly accessible. A second impetus was the widely publicized 1998 dismantling of Stanford University's Western Culture curriculum (required of all freshmen) in favor of a new course "capitulating to the self-aggrandizing demands of student radicals," the content of which would conform to the dicta of "ethnic and gender proportional representation." A third was a challenge the author received from William F. Buckley on his Firing Line television show to the notion that all young people, whatever their intended vocation, "should be given the opportunity to be exposed to great literature," science, and history (since some find those studies neither interesting nor useful).

But the final stimulus Agresto mentions suggested the opposite of Buckley's position as well as that of the art-for-art's-sake humanities scholars and Stanford radicals: a question posed to him by three freshmen at the Iraqi university he helped to found, who had been studying Thucydides'History of the Peloponnesian War: Were the Americans "Spartans" rather than "Athenians"that is, would they betray their allies as the Spartans had done? The students' challenge exemplified the way that a serious education in the humanities may benefit all young people, regardless of their nationality, their ethnic, economic, religious, or racial background, or their likely future careers, that might not arise without the study of classic, transhistorical texts, and which might be crucial to their enjoyment of a meaningful life and their role as thoughtful citizens.

Agresto summarizes the reasons for the growing loss of respect for liberal education in America in two phrases: the "denigration of the high" and the "stigmatization of the ordinary." The first phrase refers to the suicidal destruction of the liberal arts by "radicalized" teachers of fields like history, literature, philosophy, and classics who, in the name of "equity," replace nonideological courses on the history of Western civilization or American history with those devoted exclusively to the history of the oppression of women and minorities; allow arts requirements to be satisfied by courses on rock and roll; and incorporate courses devoted to comic books ("graphic novels") into the literature curriculum (I offer the last two examples based on personal observation).

To add to Agresto's point, I would note the replacement of the political and diplomatic history that used to constitute the core of the history curriculum with "social" issues focusing not only on oppression but more generally on how ordinary people lived, as in their diets and clothing fashions. This change illustrates a point made by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America: Whereas in aristocratic times, historians emphasize and even exaggerate the influence of great individuals in shaping events, democratic historians adopt the view that history is determined by impersonal forces operating on the masses. Tocqueville's aspiration was to encourage democratic people to think more highly of their capacities, rather than succumb to fate.

By the "stigmatization of the ordinary," Agresto means the view common among today's academics "that it is not merely the highest expressions of our culture that need to be toppled but this culture's more ordinary manifestations the common views of right and wrong" held by most people, including national pride and the ethical beliefs that are supported by "conventional Western religious understandings."

In response to the disparagement of most Americans as bigots and racists by academic movements like "critical race theory," Agresto observes that people "across the political spectrum," regardless of their race, ethnicity, or economic status, regard "slavery and racism as betrayals of our founding principles of liberty and equality," while also believing "that merit, achievement, moral responsibility, and character are all to be assessed" on an individual basis, not any "collective identity," and that "no special status, no entitlement or punishment, should be bestowed simply by virtue of identity-group membership."

In the second, affirmative part of his book, Agresto opens with a chapter titled "Liberal Education in Its Fullness," which addresses the benefits a true liberal education offers for the individual's happiness as well as that of others. From the outset he stresses that his defense of the liberal arts will be "tough-minded," not a mushy one that promotes qualities like sensitivity and humaneness. As he observes, most of the great Western writers were "tough-minded and challenging" rather than (usually) "sentimental."

Agresto is himself no sentimentalist when it comes to the recent prehistory of liberal-arts instruction. Citing C.S. Lewis (he might have added Nietzsche), Agresto objects to the tendency of the professariat to focus on the historical context or biography of a great writer rather than assessing the truth of an authorial claim. By rejecting "the opportunity to see the world as a great author saw it," we make the study of his writing not only valueless, but boring. Agresto adds, "Only second-class books are truly captives of their times," rather than having transhistorical value. (As an example, he cites the way that Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter was written not for the sake of historical analysis, but to raise fundamental issues of "character and morals" for readers to contemplate.)

The plausible, nonhistoricist assumption that great writers from antiquity onwards made that "human nature doesn't change all that much over time" entails that they may raise major questions we might not have contemplated from within the intellectual confines of our own society. (Recall the query posed by those Iraqi students.) At their core, as Agresto puts it, "the liberal arts are a way of understanding the most important human questions through reason and reflection."

Turning, more specifically, to the reasons for studying "Western civilization and its American annex," Agresto first answers: "Because that tradition is ours." Regardless of one's country of origin or ethnic background, if you live in a Western nation, you become part of a common culture, shaped by a common set of great and good bookswhich is not incompatible with also studying works that are specific to your specific religious or ethnic background.

A particularly astute insight of Agresto's is his challenge to the often-asserted claim that the value of liberal-arts instruction lies in encouraging "critical thinking." As he observes, "too often radical questioning" of the sort espoused by today's "politicized professariat" is just an excuse not for learning but rather for "dismissing" books that don't agree with the current conventional wisdom. As Hegel and Nietzsche had observed, professors who approach great books, or historical figures, in this way are really just "puffing [themselves] up": Even if I'm not as wise as Socrates, the professor is saying, at least I'm free from his (supposed) prejudices. Rather than rely on a scholarly tradition or current doctrines to tell us how to read classic books, Agresto urges a return to "an older understanding of the liberal arts as the home not of sophistication but of naivet," or open-mindedness.

In contemplating the value of the liberal arts for the individual, Agresto acknowledges that while studying classic books may help engender the virtues of intellectual courage (in "grappling with some of the greatest minds") and humility (knowing that we are seekers more than possessors of knowledge), there is merit to Cardinal Newman's point (and Aristotle's) that knowledge cannot in itself engender the sort of "command over the passions" that moral virtue requires. But he emphasizes another virtue, much undervalued by political partisans today, that liberal education can also generate: moderation, reflecting awareness of the limitedness of our knowledge, in contrast to the "elitist sanctimony" toward other people's moral, religious, and political beliefs that underlies much of the public's alienation from the liberal arts. Properly taught, the great books "can keep us from being ruled over by slogans," and even to confront secondhand (not only firsthand) "the baser parts of our nature," as well as its nobler potentialities.

At this point Agresto shifts focus from how liberal education benefits the individual to how it serves his country. As he observes, such learned members of America's founding generation as Jefferson, Madison, and Princeton's John Witherspoon would not have accepted the claim that such education serves no purpose beyond itself. He concludes that as the recipients of the learning of men like Shakespeare and Milton, we can repay them only by keeping their thought alive.

In his concluding chapter, "Where Do We Go from Here?" Agresto cites several promising models of the sort of education he has proposed. These include (besides St. John's College) the Core Texts program at Assumption University; the Jack Miller Center, which "has built a community of professors and teachers dedicated to teaching American history, principles of democratic government, and constitutional law and history"; and the "comprehensive" American University of Iraq, founded only 14 years ago in the Kurdish area (but with an enrollment that has grown from 45 to over 1,600). Its curriculum and mode of instruction, he observes, are the direct opposite of the narrow curriculum and "draconian" emphasis on memorization that prevailed under the Saddam Hussein regime.

While spreading this liberal-arts model will be costly, Agresto, ex-college president, has useful advice on how to address the costs, citing the multiple donors to the soon-to-open University of Austin; offering adult education in the great books to supplement regular tuition, including the Summer Classics and Executive Seminars programs at St. John's; and the need to recruit allies in graduate programs in medicine, law, and the sciences to the cause.

Limits of space prevent me from discussing the six useful appendices to this volume, which address (among other topics) Lincoln's self-education in the classics; the case for studying Latin and Greek; and "The Politics of Reading." The book concludes with "messages" to high school teachers and principals and to high school seniors preparing to choose a college.

This is a splendid book that deserves to be read by every professor and academic official who seeks to restore liberal education; by every student (and prospective student) sharing that interest; and by the parents who'll be paying the tuition. In fact it should be read by every public-spirited citizen.

The Death of Learning: How American Education Has Failed Our Students and What to Do About Itby John AgrestoEncounter Books, 256 pp., $30.99

David Lewis Schaefer is a professor of political science at the College of the Holy Cross.

Excerpt from:

Oh, the Humanities! - Washington Free Beacon

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

IN THE REFERENCE BY THE LORD ADVOCATE UNDER PARAGRAPH 34 OF SCHEDULE 6 OF THE SCOTLAND ACT 1998

IN RELATION TO WHETHER THE QUESTION FOR A REFERENDUM ON SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSED BILL RELATES TO RESERVED MATTERS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY

1.1. These submissions are presented on behalf of the Scottish National Party (the Intervener) for the assistance of the court in accordance with the directions issued by this court on 7 September 2022.

1.2. In relation to the questions posed by the Lord Advocate in her reference, the Intervener respectfully submits that, for the reasons set out in more detail below, the answer should be as follows: The proposed Scottish Independence Referendum Bill does not relate to reserved matters; and in particular does not relate to (i) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, or (ii) the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

2.1. The Interveners submissions focus on the requirement to construe the Scotland Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) in accordance with rather than contrary to the right of all peoples to self-determination.

2.2. This focus should not be understood to be the only argument favoured by the Intervener. The Intervener supports the arguments of the Lord Advocate in favour of legislative competence as contained at 114-129 and 135-138 of her written case.

2.3. The Intervener emphasises that it is not advocating for a direct exercise or implementation of the right to self-determination in these proceedings. Its argument may be summarised as follows:

2.4. The preliminary matter of competency is largely a matter for the principal parties and the Intervener makes no submissions in relation to that matter except for one comment. The Intervener notes that the Advocate Generals written case at 45 suggests that the issues contained within a governments political manifesto are to be dismissed as nothing more than party politics. The Intervener rejects the suggestion that the basis on which a government was elected by its electorate has nothing to do with the law. The rule of law and the trust of the electorate in its elected government is wholly undermined by the suggestion that the mandate given to such a government is to be regarded as nothing more than political rhetoric once that government takes office. While circumstances will impact on the intended programme of any government, it is nevertheless the case that a people is entitled to expect its government to seek to govern on the basis on which it sought to be elected. That is a fundamental principle of government and to find otherwise would wholly undermine the legitimacy of any executive branch of government and the trust of the public in government as a whole. The Interveners commitment to holding a referendum on Scottish independence is, and was understood by the public to be, at the core of its policy offer and programme of government. While matters such as timing may be affected by events, that commitment is a key factor in the Intervener securing continued electoral success in Scotland in both the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments. In a matter such as this where there is a known legal dispute as to the competence of a proposed measure, it is wholly sensible for the Lord Advocate and wholly appropriate given her constitutional role to set out to this court the dispute and to seek to have the matter placed beyond doubt in advance. It is a question that will inevitably require resolution by this court at some point. Having this matter resolved now will provide legal certainty and avoid unnecessary future legal process. The decision of Lord Drummond Young in Wightman v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 2019 SC 111 at 67 is particularly prescient:

The fundamental purpose of the supervisory jurisdiction is in my opinion to ensure that all government, whether at a national or local level, and all actions by public authorities are carried out in accordance with the law. That purpose is fundamental to the rule of law; public authorities of every sort, from national government downwards, must observe the law. The scope of the supervisory jurisdiction must in my opinion be determined by that fundamental purpose. Consequently I would have no hesitation in rejecting any arguments based on procedural niceties, or the detailed scope of previous descriptions of the supervisory jurisdiction, if they appear to stand in the way of the proper enforcement of the rule of law.

3.1. The right to self-determination, as a fundamental and inalienable right, must inform the interpretation of the 1998 Act when considering the answer to the questions posed by the Lord Advocate.

3.2. Article 1 of the UN Charter, adopted in 1945, provides that one of the fundamental purposes and principles of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. In December 1960 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514. Resolution 1514 declares as follows at paragraph 2:

All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3.3. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Each Covenant replicated the terms of paragraph 2 of Resolution 1514.

3.4. In his separate opinion in the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius, Judge Patrick Robinson notes as follows in relation to paragraph 2 of Resolution 1514:

Written in the present tense, this is very strong and forceful language, declaratory of existing rights. Indeed the entire Declaration is clear and unequivocal in the language it uses. Rosalyn Higgins [The Development of International Law through the Political Organs of the United Nations, Oxford University Press (OUP), 1963] captures very well the essence and spirit of the resolution when she commented that the right to self- determination is regarded not as a right enforceable at some future time in indefinite circumstances, but a legal right here and now.

The incorporation of the right to self-determination as the first article in the two international Covenants, which have received widespread ratifications, solidifies its development as a fundamental human right, and indeed, the foundation for all other human rights. This unity is achieved by the existence of a common basis applicable to both purposes, namely, respect for the inherent dignity and worth of the human person.1

3.5. The Intervener submits that, in light of the above and the central and core position of the right of all peoples to self-determination, the right is of fundamental significance perhaps one of the most fundamental rights of all, referred to by the General Assembly as inalienable.2

3.6. In an international law context, the right to self-determination was perhaps most prominent during the post-colonial independence movement. The right is, however, not restricted to such circumstances and this is best captured in the words of Judge Cancado Trindade in relation to the unilateral declaration of independence made by Kosovo:

The historical process of emancipation of peoples in the recent past (mid-twentieth century onwards) came to be identified as emanating from the principle of self-determination, more precisely external self-determination. It confronted and overcame the oppression of peoples as widely known at that time. It became widespread in the historical process of decolonization. Later on, with the recurrence of oppression as manifested in other forms, and within independent States, the emancipation of peoples came to be inspired by the principle of self-determination, more precisely internal self-determination, so as to oppose tyranny.3

3.7. In the context of the Kosovan unilateral declaration, the United Kingdom made submissions to the ICJ. Within those submissions, the United Kingdom wrote as follows:

To summarise, international law favours the territorial integrity of States. Outside the context of self-determination, normally limited to situations of colonial type or those involving foreign occupation, it does not confer any right to secede. But neither, in general, does it prohibit secession or separation, or guarantee the unity of predecessor States against internal movements leading to separation or independence with the support of the peoples concerned.4

3.8. The United Kingdom therefore recognises the fundamental right of a people to self- determination and understands that discrete peoples within a State may determine, as is their right, that they no longer wish to form part of that State.

4.1. There is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a people for the purposes of the right to self-determination as the matter is situation dependent.5 A people can be constituted by reference to a State boundary, as was often the case with the independence of former colonial territories. That, however, is not the only possible definition and it is entirely possible as with Kosovo for a people to be represented by a smaller group within a State boundary. That distinction is the difference between external self-determination and internal self-determination as set out above. Commenting on the distinction, Dr Kalana Senaratne writes:

It can be noted here that the separation of the concept of self-determination into two distinct parts internal and external has served an important purpose. The distinction, in teasing out an internal dimension of self-determination, allows international lawyers to emphasize the need to take the freedoms of the people within a state more seriously.6

4.2. It is therefore entirely possible, where there is an accepted geographic boundary within a State, for the determination of a people to be made by reference to such a boundary, constituted of those who have chosen to live there. That determination is particularly clear where the geographic area already has its own legislature and legal system as is the case with Scotland as set out in more detail below.

4.3. The United Kingdom has recognised the concept of internal self-determination since at least the mid-1980s. In a statement made as the UK Representative to the General Assemblys Third Committee on 12 October 1984, Mr R Fursland said:

The right of self-determination has pride of place in both International Covenants, and rightly so. It is not only important in itself, but a necessary foundation for the exercise of other human rights. One might get the impression from some UN debates that the right of self-determination can only be denied from outside, by invasion and foreign occupation. And indeed, the occupation and brutalisation of peoples by foreign invaders in, for example, Afghanistan and Cambodia represent glaring contemporary violations of this right. But we must not forget that peoples can also be deprived of this right by their own countrymen.

It cannot be reiterated too often that, according to the International Covenants, self- determination is a right which belongs to peoples, not to governments. The fact that a country is not occupied by a foreign power does not automatically mean that its people enjoy the right of self-determination. They enjoy that right only if, in the words of the Covenants, they are enabled to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Self-determination is not a one-off exercise. It cannot be achieved for any people by one revolution or one election. It is a continuous process. It requires that peoples be given continuing opportunities to choose their governments and social systems, and to change them requires that they should be enabled to exercise other rights set out in the Covenants, such as the rights to freedom of thought and expression; the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, either directly or through freely chosen representatives; and the right to vote and be elected at genuine periodic elections.

Mr Chairman, the principle of self-determination is both inalienable and indivisible. It is fundamental to international peace and security, and to the protection of national integrity. As nation states, all of us have a vital interest in it. We cannot afford to be selective in its application, because none of us except perhaps the very strongest can be sure when our own right of self- determination may be threatened.

4.4. The reference to the inalienability of the right to self-determination was also made by the UK Representative in 1983:

The Committee has repeatedly declared its belief in the inalienable right of self-determination. Inalienable is a very strong word. It means birthright; it means you cannot get rid of it; it means that the Falklanders have a right of self-determination which no one can take from them. The United Kingdom shares that view.8

4.5. The United Kingdoms position, therefore, at least on the international stage, appears to be clear in that a people has an inalienable right to self-determination which cannot be taken away from them, and that a people can exist within a state boundary.

5.1. The answer to this question is undoubtedly yes.

5.2. That the United Kingdom in its current form consists of separate nations is clear when one has regard to the terms of the various Acts of Union bringing it about. The Union With England Act 1707 refers expressly to the two kingdoms of Scotland and England. That notwithstanding, the 1707 Act makes express provision for Scotlands separate legal, educational, and ecclesiastical systems to remain separate from those of England. On the recent accession of King Charles III, His Majesty was expressly required to make certain declarations in relation to the independence of the Church of Scotland, for example, borne of the Claim of Right 1689.

5.3. Scotland elects representatives to its Parliament; the scope of the people of Scotland is certainly sufficiently clear geographically. The geographic scope is, in fact, set out as schedule 1 to the 1998 Act. The Scottish Parliament exercises its legislative power for and over the people of Scotland to whom it is democratically accountable. It is firmly rooted in the traditions of a universal democracy: AXA v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, 2012 SC (UKSC) 122 per Lord Hope at 49. Scotland has discrete administrative bodies and distinct social and economic policies. The role of the Scottish Parliament has developed since its inception, most clearly by the extension of its powers under the Scotland Act 2016. The role and significance of the Scottish Parliament must, therefore, be understood in its current context. The Scottish Parliament regularly debates and legislates upon matters of significant importance to the people of Scotland. It is to the Scottish Parliament that the Scottish people regularly turn on matters of material in their lives. It is the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliament alone that represents and legislates exclusively for the people of Scotland.

5.4. Following the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, the Smith Commission was established to consider further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament, standing the campaign promises made to the Scottish people by each of the three main UK parties. Per paragraph 20 of the Commissions report:

Reflecting the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, as expressed in the referendum on 18 September 2014, and in the context of Scotland remaining within the UK, an enhanced devolution settlement for Scotland will be durable, responsive and democratic.

It is clear from the first clause of that paragraph that it is recognised throughout the UK that the people of Scotland are the people with the authority to decide their own future.

The work of the Smith Commission, which followed discussions between the UK and Scottish Governments, led to the enactment of the Scotland Act 20169.

5.5. If it were not sufficiently clear that the people of Scotland are a people from those matters above, the answer can be found definitively by having regard to section 63A(3) of the 1998 Act which provides as follows:

In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.

That provision was introduced by the UK Parliament by way of the Scotland Act 2016 and makes it clear that there is a distinct and determinable demos of the people of Scotland and that that demos represents a people for the purposes of the right to self- determination.

5.6. For those reasons, the people of Scotland are a people for the purposes of the right to self-determination.

6.1. It is the Interveners submission that the right to self-determination, as a fundamental and inalienable right, must inform the interpretation of the 1998 Act when considering the answer to the questions posed by the Lord Advocate.

6.2. The Scottish constitutional tradition as distinct from the English equivalent is set out famously and most succinctly by Lord President Cooper in MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 at 411:

The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origin from Coke and Blackstone, and was widely popularised during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey, the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution. Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done.

6.3. The Scottish constitutional tradition does not subscribe to the form of sovereignty of Parliament described by Diceyan theory as the despotism of the King in Parliament.10

6.4. It is not clear to what extent any part of the United Kingdom continues to regard the power of the UK Parliament to be truly unfettered. No power is without limit. In a modern democracy, the rule of law is maintained through a balance of the three branches of government, and not by attempts by one of them to override or usurp the role of the others: Cherry v Advocate General [2019] UKSC 41, [2020] SC (UKSC) 1 Per Lady Hale at 33-34. When the case was in the Inner House, Lord Drummond Young noted:

The rule of law requires that any act of the executive, or any other public institution, must be liable to judicial scrutiny to ensure that it is within the scope of the legal power under which it is exercised. The boundaries of any legal power are necessarily a matter for the courts, and the courts must have jurisdiction to determine what those boundaries are and whether they have been exceeded. That jurisdiction is constitutionally important, and in my opinion the courts should not shrink from exercising it. Consequently, if the expression non-justiciable means that the courts have no jurisdiction to consider whether a power has been lawfully exercised, it is a concept that is incompatible with the rule of law and contrary to fundamental features of the constitution of the United Kingdom.11

6.5. In Moohan v Lord Advocate [2014] UKSC 67, 2015 SC (UKSC) 1 Lord Hodge said at 35: I do not exclude the possibility that in the very unlikely event that a parliamentary majority abusively sought to entrench its power by a curtailment of the franchise or similar device, the common law, informed by principles of democracy and the rule of law and international norms, would be able to declare such legislation unlawful.

6.6. Such limits as a matter of law are particularly acute when one is concerned with interferences with fundamental rights. This court has consistently held that fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words and, even when faced with express statutory authorisation of an intrusion into a fundamental right, such authorisation will be interpreted narrowly and strictly: AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, 2012 SC (UKSC) 122 per Lord Reed at 152; R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, [2020] AC 869 per Lord Reed at 65, 66, 77-84; Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, [2015] 1 WLR 1591 per Lord Reed at 119.

6.7. Whether through the enduring nature of the Scottish constitutional tradition or by way of the rebalancing of the three branches of government as part of a more modern understanding of what the rule of law means, it is not the case (if it ever was) that the UK Parliament is without restraint or limit. It may well have supreme legislative competence, in that it can legislate in relation to any area, but it is not the case that, consistent with the rule of law, it is able to override, remove, or otherwise interfere with fundamental rights (such as the right to self-determination) without clear and unambiguous statutory authority12 and without a clear, rational and evidenced basis for doing so. In these circumstances, there is neither unambiguous statutory authority nor any clear, rational and evidenced basis for seeking to interfere with such a fundamental right.

6.8. Beyond that matter, however, standing the existence and significance of the right to self- determination, there is a strong presumption in favour of interpreting domestic legislation in a manner which is compatible with international law. In Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22, [2012] 2 AC 471, Lord Dyson determined as follows at 122:

But there is no doubt that there is a strong presumption in favour of interpreting an English statute in a way which does not place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations.

6.9. In an extra-judicial speech given by Lord Mance on 13 February 201713 on the subject of International Law in the UK Supreme Court, Lord Mance said (at 8):

First, international law has received much domestic attention, because of a strong presumption that domestic law, including statute law, can and should be read consistently with international law. And the volume of international law bodies and instruments, in areas as diverse as environmental law or the law relating to children, has accentuated the relevance of this tendency, even if international law can still sometimes be characterised as vague or unsettled. The presumption as recognised in English law is a strong one.14

6.10. The Advocate General, in his written case to this court, has suggested at 71 that the Union of Scotland and England is, par excellence, a UK-wide matter and that is why it might be reserved. The clear implication of that is that the Advocate General believes as a matter of law that, should Scotland wish to become an independent country but the remainder of the United Kingdom does not want that, the remainder of the United Kingdom should have the ability to prevent Scottish independence. Whilst that belief might explain some of the political rhetoric, nothing could be further from the truth as a matter of law. A right to self-determination is not dependent or conditional on others agreeing with that decision. The right to self-determination of a people is exercised by that people and that people alone. The United Kingdom has a clear role in the negotiation of the manner in which Scotland leaves the Union should Scotland choose to do so and the implementation thereof, but that does not give the UK Government any ability in law to veto, prevent or hinder the expression by the Scottish people of their right to self-determination. The decision of the Canadian Supreme Court, which is referred to at paragraph 7.6 below, is a very clear example of exactly that form of procedure when considering the exercise of the right to self-determination within an existing State.

6.11. Of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, 59 are for Scottish constituencies. MPs from Scottish constituencies account for less than ten percent of the chamber. The UK leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties have indicated they will not countenance a further referendum on Scottish independence. There is accordingly no practical way in which the right to self-determination can be advanced through that legislature. If there is no way in which to exercise a right, it is no right at all: ubi jus ibi remedium.15

6.12. In construing the relevant sections of the 1998 Act in the circumstances of this case, therefore, the right to self-determination requires to be taken into account and, where there is a choice between a reading which is compatible with that right and a reading which is not compatible, the compatible reading should prevail.

7.1. It is important to understand the manner in which the question of legislative competence under the 1998 Act must be approached.

7.2. The Scottish Parliaments role in the day-to-day lives of the people of Scotland has increased since its inception nearly 25 years ago. It plays a central role in the lives of the people of Scotland and is responsible for legislating for them in a manner that is focused on their needs. It considers and debates Scotlands place in the UK and in the world, and is the place to which the Scottish people turn and expect their lives to be reflected and represented. As a result, the 1998 Act must be interpreted in line with its evolving purpose and within the context of the developing role of the Scottish Parliament. A modern approach to the interpretation of legislation in this manner is set out succinctly by Lord Burrows in an extra-judicial speech given on 24 March 2022, particularly at section 3 thereof.16

7.3. The provisions of section 29 of the 1998 Act insofar as relevant to current matters are set out by the Lord Advocate at 88 of her written case.

7.4. The Intervener agrees with the arguments made by the Lord Advocate in support of the competence of the Bill. The effect of previous authorities on the meaning of relates to indicate that this court requires, firstly, to consider the purpose of the Bill and, secondly, to determine whether it has more than a loose or consequential connection with a reserved matter.

7.5. The purpose and effect of the Bill is to give a democratic method of ascertaining the views of the Scottish people in relation to the question asked. Whatever the outcome of a referendum, it cannot of itself have any effect on the Union or on the UK Parliament. That there would be subsequent discussions between the UK and Scottish Governments in the event that the Scottish people indicate their support for Scottish independence does not change that. Those discussions are separate from the referendum and do not inform its purpose, bearing in mind the words of this court:

The purpose of an enactment may extend beyond its legal effect, but it is not the same thing as its political motivation.17

7.6. The use of a non-self-executing referendum as a method of ascertaining the views of an electorate in questions of the independence of a people is considered in detail in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of the Reference re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 RCS 217. At 87-97 of that decision, it is noted that the referendum, whilst having no direct or legal effect on the constitution, may provide a democratic method of ascertaining the views of the electorate on important political questions on a particular occasion. Subsequent discussions or negotiations, which are by necessity conditional on the outcome of such a referendum, are separate and discrete matters. The proposed referendum on Scottish independence would not be a referendum which sought to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties in the manner found to be legally unsound by the Supreme Court of Canada. That court found as follows at 92:

The continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order cannot remain indifferent to the clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada. This would amount to the assertion that other constitutionally recognized principles necessarily trump the clearly expressed democratic will of the people of Quebec. Such a proposition fails to give sufficient weight to the underlying constitutional principles that must inform the amendment process, including the principles of democracy and federalism. The rights of other provinces and the federal government cannot deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession, should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others.

This is consistent with the Interveners submission to this court. The Scottish people have a right to express themselves in relation to their constitutional and political future. Should they express a view that they would like to move away from the current system, that would be a matter for negotiations after the referendum. Speculation or concern about the outcome of such a referendum, however, cannot properly form a basis on which the UK Government seeks to prevent it taking place.

7.7. The argument from the Advocate General for a broader interpretation of the phrase relates to is premised on an assumption that the Scottish people will indicate their support for Scottish independence. While that is the hope of the Intervener, it cannot be assumed, and the fallacy of the Advocate Generals argument is clear if one considers the effect of the proposed referendum in the event that the Scottish people do not indicate their support for independence. In that situation, it cannot possibly be suggested on any reasonable basis that the effect of the referendum is anything other than a determination of the will of the Scottish people.

7.8. Notwithstanding the undeniable political importance of a referendum, it is difficult to see how the holding of a referendum to determine the view of the Scottish people has anything more than a loose or consequential connection with any reserved matter in the 1998 Act. Seeking to test the views of the Scottish people by way of a referendum is perfectly competent and, standing the continued electoral mandate of the Intervener, it is democratically unthinkable that the people of Scotland would be denied such a right to express their view.

7.9. Beyond that, however, there is a positive statutory requirement on courts, when interpreting a Scottish Bill to read such a Bill (or Act) in a manner which brings it within legislative competence if such a reading is possible: 1998 Act, section 101(2). This statutory requirement is consistent with the Interveners argument anent a reading which is compatible with international law. If such a reading is possible, that is the reading which should prevail.

7.10. In that context, the arguments, as set out by the Lord Advocate, are premised on whether relates to should be given a broad or a narrow reading. The 1998 Act is without question a constitutional statute: AXA v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, 2012 SC (UKSC) 122 per Lord Reed at 153. As such, in accordance with settled principles of interpretation, its provisions must be interpreted purposively and not on a strictly literal basis: Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [2002] UKHL 32 at 11; AXA v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, 2012 SC (UKSC) 122 per Lord Reed at 153.

7.11. The broader reading of the phrase cannot have been the intention of the UK Parliament when one has regard to all of the relevant factors. There is nothing to suggest that the UK Parliaments intention was to stifle democratic expression; that would be an astonishing proposition which one would expect to be set out expressly in the 1998 Act and it is not. That is particularly so, given, as is noted in AXA v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, 2012 SC (UKSC) 122 per Lord Reed at 153:

Parliament did not legislate in a vacuum: it legislated for a liberal democracy founded on particular constitutional principles and traditions. That being so, Parliament cannot be taken to have intended to establish a body which was free to abrogate fundamental rights or to violate the rule of law.

7.12. The argument benefits from being tested against other reserved matters in schedule 5of the 1998 Act. Take for example heading C10 of schedule 5, which includes the reservation internet services. It cannot reasonably be suggested applying the purported broad reading that the Scottish Parliament is not permitted to legislate on anything related to websites, to require certain information notices to be placed online, or to ask a question of the electorate about upgrading broadband infrastructure. Such an outcome would be patently absurd. That being the case, it is unfathomable for one heading under schedule 5 to be held to a different standard than is applied to others, bearing in mind that the scheme of devolution in Scotland is that everything is devolved unless it is expressly reserved.

7.13. The particular matter of whether the Scottish Parliament could hold a referendum in relation to independence was discussed during the passage of the Scotland Bill through the UK Parliament. While recognising the difficulties inherent in discerning Parliamentary intention18, standing the apparent ambiguity in the reading which has led to this reference being necessary, having regard to those discussions would be of assistance to the court, given their clarity on the issue from the then UK Government. In particular, the Intervener draws the courts attention to an interaction on 24 July 1997. On that day, having been asked expressly:

Will the right hon. Gentleman reiterate that nothing in the documents, or in any response that he will give, will interfere in any way with the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine their own constitutional future, whatever that may be?,

the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar, responded:

If I did try to build such barriers, they would be futile and without effect. At the end of the day, in practical politics, what matters is what people want. If the hon. Gentleman is able to carry the people of Scotland, no doubt he will be able to advance his cause.

7.14. The entire purpose of devolution was to empower the devolved nations and not to disempower them. The clear intention of the UK Parliament was to reserve to the UK Parliament the power to legislate for the implementation of any legislation which has the effect of amending or altering the Union or the scope of the UK Parliament. A non-self-executing referendum does not seek to do any of those things and nor does it have any such effect.

7.15. Furthermore, the matter having been expressly raised with the UK Government during the passage of the Bill through the UK Parliament on a number of occasions, it would have been very simple for the matter to have been expressly reserved and put beyond doubt in a clear and unambiguous expression of its intention. The UK Parliament did just that in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 at section 1 which provides that Northern Ireland shall remain part of the UK until such time as a majority vote in favour of leaving in a poll carried out in accordance with schedule 1 of that Act. Schedule 1 of that Act expressly provides that the poll shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of State.19 The UK Parliament opted not to include any such express provision in the Scotland Act 1998.

7.16. Should a subsequent UK Government have wished to seek to extend the reservation in relation to a referendum on independence, it could at any time have sought to garner support for such an amendment in the UK Parliament. No such amendment has been made.

7.17. To the extent that a subsequent UK Government now seeks to make use of the wording enacted in the 1998 Act effectively to stifle democratic expressions of will, that is very clearly not the purpose for which the 1998 Act was enacted. Indeed, such an attempt would frustrate the purpose of the 1998 Act and would be subject to review: Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997; RM v Scottish Ministers 2012 UKSC 58, 2013 SC (UKSC) 139 per Lord Reed at 42-48.

7.18. To the contrary, the narrow reading of relates to does not infringe upon the rights of the people of Scotland to express their view as to how they choose to be governed and nor does it run contrary to the purpose of the devolution settlement. The narrow reading permits the question to be asked in accordance with the norms of international law as set out above and in accordance with the strong presumption in favour of a reading which is compatible with international law.

7.19. The narrow reading retains the reservation to the UK Parliament of the overarching power to enact any subsequent implementing legislation just as it did in 1922 with the Irish Free State Agreement Act 1922 and the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922, and in 1949 with the Ireland Act 1949.

7.20. Neither the narrow reading of the phrase relates to nor the holding of a single question, non-self-executing referendum as proposed in the Bill removes or reduces any power currently vested in the UK Parliament.

7.21. Most importantly, however, for the purposes of these submissions, the narrow reading of the phrase does not infringe upon, reduce, or deny the Scottish peoples inalienable right to self-determination. For that reason, any doubt between the two possible readings that continues to exist must result in the narrowest reading being given to the phrase relates to.

7.22. Put short, the holding of a consultative referendum does not result in a reduction in the scope of the powers of the UK Parliament and nor does it, of itself, have any effect on the Union. Legislation to enable such a referendum does not, therefore, relate to the reservation of the Union nor to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Holding such a referendum, however, represents the expression by a people of their right to self- determination which should not be interfered with except under the clearest and most extreme circumstances.

7.23. The Scottish Parliament has the legislative authority to legislate for a non-self-executing referendum on Scottish independence in order to seek to determine the views of the Scottish people on that matter.

8.1. Taking all of the above matters into account, it is the respectful submission of the Intervener that:

8.2. As well as being consistent with international legal norms, the narrow reading of relates to is consistent with the statutory interpretation exercise as required by section 101 of the 1998 Act and it is consistent with the overarching purpose of the devolution legislation. The broader reading of relates to does not satisfy any of those requirements.

8.3. When answering the questions posed by the Lord Advocate, therefore, the submission of the Intervener is that this court should find that the Scottish Parliament may legislate for a non-self-executing referendum on Scottish independence and, accordingly, the proposed Scottish Independence Referendum Bill does not relate to (i) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, or (ii) the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998.

Claire Mitchell KC David Welsh Instructed by Stuart Munro, Livingstone Brown

Footnotes:

Link:

The SNP's Supreme Court submission on the independence referendum Scottish National Party - SNP

In the early days of the pandemic, when conspiracy theorists were ranting about things like the government injecting trackable microchips into people via vaccine, New Jersey launched a disinformation portal to counter the craziness.

In the two years since, theportal run by the states Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness has put out warnings on everything fromdeepfake technologyto the war inUkraineto, most recently,monkeypox. Just a handful of other states, including Colorado, California, and Connecticut, have launched state-run websites intended to dispel disinformation on elections, COVID-19, and other issues.

But is government one of the mostdistrustedentities around the best resource for debunking disinformation?

One expert says no. Britt Paris, assistant professor of library and information science at Rutgers University, said such state-run disinformation portals are unusual for a reason.

In many cases, people are right to mistrust state governments, given their history of oppression through policy, corruption, and cover-ups for corporate malfeasance, Paris said. You need only think about state-sanctioned police brutality and the release of toxins into predominantly minoritized and disenfranchised communities, both here in New Jersey and across the country.

She added: use of this history, state-based initiatives are seen as questionable, regardless of where one falls on the ideological spectrum, and are easy targets for sowing distrust around their goals, even if they offer reputable information.

That happened last spring, when a federal disinformation-busting initiative by the Department of Homeland Security fell victim to public mistrust and ended just a month after it started.

In New Jersey, Thomas Hauck acknowledged the hurdle the government faces in gaining the publics trust. Hauck, a retired FBI agent and U.S. Marine, last month took over New Jerseys Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness intelligence and operations division, where the disinformation portal is based.

But New Jerseys portal is just one piece of the puzzle in the battle for truth, Hauck said. Providing accurate information will help build public trust, he added.

The reality is theres no one platform or agency that has the manpower or the means to track and dispel the amount of disinformation being circulated, Hauck said. We are making an effort to get reliable information into the hands of citizens.

Eventually the public will see that the information thats been coming out of his office is accurate, he added.

The portal, which offers users achecklistto determine if something is disinformation, has logged nearly 300,000 visitors since it launched in March 2020, Hauck said.

With so much misinformation, Hauck said his office weighs several factors when picking what to post on the portal.

They highlight trends that have the potential to incite panic and create distrust between the government and the people, as well as disinformation trends that have the potential to increase polarization, influence government actions or law enforcement responses, and exhaust resources and bring about undue harm.

Monkeypox disinformation the offices most recent alert falls under several of those categories, especially because it could derail efforts to stop its spread, he added.

The portal warns readers about viral videos and homophobic claims on social media that contain misinformation and contribute to the stigma around monkeypox. Such disinformation could discourage infected people from getting treatment, hampering efforts to curb the outbreak, statements on the portal say.

Paris agreed public health misinformation is important for states to address.But political and economic concerns undergird a lot of the distrust in governments, including public health matters, Paris said.

For example, information and health care systems have become so corporatized that the public has become suspicious of their messaging, she said.

And, she added, most topics are injected with ideological conflict these days, even and especially when it makes no sense.

Thats why the state might be better served by enlisting locally situated, trusted sources of information like community-based media and podcasts, churches, universities, and social organizations in disinformation missions, Paris said.

States also could reinvest in public libraries, public schools, and public media instead of top-down disinformation portals, she added.

There is no one-size-fits-all, magic-bullet approach, she said. But paying attention to who people trust is key.

New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com. Follow New Jersey Monitor on Facebook and Twitter.

More here:

In war on disinformation, a dubious crusader joins the fight the government - GCN.com

The United States has a history of racism and national oppression, according to an African American journalist and political analyst.

The United Nations has urged the United States to start the process of offering reparations to descendants of enslaved people as part of a larger need to provide redress for legacies of the past.

The Committee is concerned that the lingering legacies of colonialism and slavery continue to fuel racism and racial discrimination in the [US] undermining the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all individuals and communities, the UNs Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination wrote in a report, released on Tuesday. The committee is part of the UNs human rights office.

The UN body monitors the progress made by member states in enforcing the UNs Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which the US joined in 1994 with various reservations and caveats, The Independent reported.

This is an important development for the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) to issue such a scathing report citing the legacy of African enslavement, Abayomi Azikiwe said during an interview with Press TV on Wednesday.

The CERD report stemmed from work done by several environmental groupings in the state of Louisiana where toxic pollution in certain parishes has been labeled cancer alley. These conditions cannot be separated from the history of racism and national oppression inside the United States, added Azikiwe, the editor at the Pan-African News Wire.

The CERD report was in response to an investigation by the UN committee which widespread travel through impacted communities. Three of the Louisiana groups issued their own shadow report. A delegation from Louisiana traveled to Geneva to present first-hand testimony to the UN. This area in question lies along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, where historically, the African people were enslaved for the social benefits and profits of the white ruling class, he said.

In 2022, over 200 petrochemical plants have taken the place of rice and corn plantations. The air has been poisoned along with the soil and water. Nonetheless, even with the UN report, it will take a mass movement in the US to force the government to pay reparations for the historical and contemporary problems facing African Americans, the journalist said.

The US continues to perpetuate racial inequality through police violence, gun violence, and environmental racism, according to the report. It recommended a reparations commission as a key strategy to begin the justice process.

The UN body praised Marylands Lynching Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the first such body of its kind in the US, as well as Californias ongoing study of reparations for descendants of enslaved people.

The report urged Congress to adopt HR 40, a bill from US representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas, which would establish a commission to study and develop reparations proposals.

Originally posted here:

US has a history of racism and national oppression: Journalist - Press TV

Editors note: To mark the one-year anniversary of the Talibans second takeover of Afghanistan,Just Securityis publishing aseriesof essays on the developments of the last year and the prospects for the future of Afghanistan. The series will continue over the coming weeks, and feature voices from Afghan civil society, U.S. national security experts, international human rights experts, and others.

Almost 7 million Afghans have been driven out of their homes and Afghanistan by the interconnected challenges of imposed conflicts, ongoing violence, and growing poverty. This is a lingering legacy of the 43-year wars that confronts the country where external aggression from its predatory neighborhood has resulted in non-stop violence and oppressive rule by the Taliban. Since August 2021 when they captured Kabul, the Taliban have continued to displace Afghans at home and drive others out of their beautiful homeland into far-flung places in search of protection and basic human security.

Harboring a large number of regional and global terrorist networks across Afghanistan, the Taliban are joined by these terrorist groups to violate the basic human rights of Afghans and target them indiscriminately. In its July 15, 2022, the United Nations Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team warned the U.N. Security Council that the Taliban and al-Qaeda remain close with the latter both advising the Taliban leadership and expanding operationally across Afghanistan, enjoying greater freedom under Taliban rule.

This proved to be correct when the United States located al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in a Kabul safe house that had been provided to him by the Talibans minister of interior Sirajuddin Haqqani, and killed him by two drone strikes on July 31, 2022. The Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISKP), and their other terrorist affiliates persecute, torture, disappear, and extrajudicially kill innocent Afghan citizens due to ethnic, religious, sectarian, political, and ideological differences. Hindus, Sikhs, Hazaras, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmens, as well as nationalist and pro-democracy Pashtuns remain their primary targets. And in areas of growing anti-Taliban resistance in the northeast, east, and south of Afghanistan, terrorist groups continue committing war crimes, including forcible displacement of civilians, destruction of their properties and sources of livelihood, as well as other unspeakable scorch-earth measures.

In its July 20, 2022 report on Human Rights in Afghanistan: 16 August 2021 15 June 2022, however, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) overlooked the direct ties between the Taliban and regional and global terrorist networks and how they rely on each other operationally to oppress, terrorize, and silence Afghan citizens. And while the report did cover widespread human rights violations in Afghanistan, it obfuscated the Talibans deep-seated ties with major terrorist networks and their shared involvement in violating Afghans basic human rights.

In effect, the report failed to provide accurate qualitative and quantitative analyses of how the Taliban have brought about and are perpetuating the worsening human rights and humanitarian situation across Afghanistan. A lack of this critical information can negatively impact status determination by foreign immigration officials of Afghan refugees under the provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its related protocols. In accordance with this refugee law, any Afghans seeking asylum in countries which are party to the 1951 Geneva Convention immediately should be granted refugee status. Moreover, Afghan refugees should be provided with adequate resettlement support that tangibly helps integrate them into their new society.

Unfortunately, Afghans fleeing the country due to well-founded fears of widespread persecution, torture, and extrajudicial killing under the Taliban and their terrorist affiliates are often denied refugee status in the first, second, and even third countries of asylum. They are placed through arduous national immigration processes that can hinder the implementation of the receiving countries obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention and its related protocols. And those who make it after months and sometimes years of waiting without any status at all often are not provided with the kind of basic social protection services that must be granted to any Convention-defined refugee.

This situation particularly impacts Afghan-refugee families with young children, delaying their local assimilation and thus preventing them from upward socioeconomic mobility in their country of new residence. When this happens, refugees are misperceived and discriminated against as backward, lazy, and dependent on welfare programs, which local politicians often oppose and politicize against win-win immigration policies that are consistent with the obligations of their countries under the 1951 Geneva Convention, as well as the provisions of the international human rights and humanitarian laws.

Indeed, the failure by UNAMA to cite in its latest report the United Nations own recent analysis concerning the mutually reinforcing ties between the Taliban and al-Qaeda since the former regained control of Afghanistan stems from UNAMAs deliberate prioritization of a strategy of continued engagement with the Taliban in order to facilitate humanitarian access. But it is the Taliban, led by some of the most notorious U.N.-sanctioned terrorists, who exploit the provision of humanitarian access as an effective and easy way to engage with the international community. They do so not only for gaining legitimacy and international recognition but they also need international aid resources to supplement operational budgets that finance their recurrent atrocities against suffering Afghans as a nation of diverse ethno-sectarian groups.

Tragically, these heinous crimes are aimed at erasing Afghanistans very identity, which historically has been grounded in its rich diversity. This identity stems from the countrys geography at the heart of Asia where peoples of different civilizations used to meet through commerce and cultural exchange. The Talibans misrule once again intends to wipe out this Afghanistan, as the world recalls from the destruction by the Taliban of the statues of Buddha in Bamiyan Province a few months before 9/11 in 2001.

Moreover, these atrocities are further compounded by the Talibans draconian policies that directly target and deprive Afghans of their most fundamental human rights. Today, Afghanistan is the only country in the world where education for girls and work for women are banned. This effectively condemns the country to an ever-widening humanitarian crisis and chronic poverty, which fuel conflict. And this worsening vicious cycle of human rights violations, conflict, impoverishment, and depleting resources drive the non-stop patterns of internal displacement and flight of Afghans in search of protection elsewhere.

Consequently, some 4.3 million Afghans have been internally displaced so far. This is the worlds largest internally displaced population, which includes about 1 million Afghans, who were displaced by the deadly offensives and attacks, which the Taliban and their regional and global terrorist affiliates jointly carried out throughout 2021 before the fall of Kabul. Besides this, some 2.7 million Afghans have been driven across Afghanistans borders and live as refugees in 98 different countries. Afghan refugees are the third largest displaced population in the world after Syrian refugees and displaced Venezuelans.

The Afghan people immensely appreciate the humanitarian assistance which various host countries have provided to refugees and asylum seekers over the past four decades. But pull factors such as the formation of an inclusive government acceptable to all Afghans, improved security, enhanced protection, reintegration assistance, and increased employment opportunities in Afghanistan should determine push factors in host states. In this light, countries hosting large numbers of Afghan refugees and asylum seekers should honor the principle of non-refoulement rooted in international and Islamic law to refrain from the forcible deportation of Afghan refugees and asylum seekers.

The United States can and should do more to help its Afghan allies, some 80,000 of whom have applied for the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) since August 2021. But of these, only 10,096 have been approved. And those who have made it to the United States on humanitarian parole run the risk of losing access to work, health-care, and their legal right to reside in America once their two-year humanitarian parole expires. Congress owes it to Afghans and their families, who risked their lives working with the U.S. military and civilian institutions during their 20-year deployment to the country, to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act, allowing Afghan refugees to adjust their status from temporary to permanent in two years.

This support shouldnt be withheld in a nation of immigrants with the promise of the American dream, which gave Afghans hope in the first place to endanger their lives to support U.S. military and civilian programs across Afghanistan under daily threats of violence emanating from the Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISKP, and other groups that continue to destabilize Afghanistan and undermine international security. Indeed, passing the Adjustment Act would honor the memories of 2,448 fallen American forces, alongside whom the Afghan SIV applicants worked between 2001 and August 2021.

Almost 2,500 years ago, the Greek dramatist Euripides wrote, There is no greater sorrow on Earth than the loss of ones native land. For Afghans, too, the tragedy of losing their beautiful homeland to the medieval forces of terrorism and extremism is no less tolerable. Any short- and long-term measuressuch as the Afghan Adjustment Actto welcome and make Afghan refugees at home should give them a much-needed respite, one year since their unforgettably traumatic flight from Afghanistan.

Afghanistan, Anniversary of the Fall of Kabul, asylum, displaced people, Geneva Conventions, humanitarian assistance, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), non-refoulement, persecution, Refugee Crisis, Special Immigrant Visa, Taliban, Targeted Killing, terrorism, United Nations, War Crimes

Continue reading here:

The World Should Protect Afghan Refugees Fleeing the Taliban's Oppression - Just Security

Ella Tennant, Keele University

A woman in Suzhou, China, was reportedly detained recently for provoking trouble. Her alleged crime was being spotted outside wearing a kimono. The woman was dressed like a character from a manga (a Japanese comic). Arresting her might seem dramatic but there is more at play here than a simple fashion faux pas.

Clothing is a cultural identifier and, to many, a symbol of national identity and pride. When you think of the kimono you might think of Japan. However, the garment is rarely worn in Japan now, other than at traditional festivals or celebrations. As a result, the kimono industry, which experienced a boom in the 1980s, is currently experiencing a massive downturn.

The kimono worn today, however, is not an indigenous invention of the Japanese. It can be traced back to the 7th century when the Imperial Court began to wear garments adapted from Chinese styles.

Despite these Chinese origins, the kimono is a major cultural signifier of Japan globally. And, in many Asian countries, particularly those which were brutally colonised by Japan, the kimono remains a symbol of oppression.

There is a long history of sartorial similarities between Japan and China.

Chinese explorers in southern parts of ancient Japan around the 3rd century BC observed people wearing simple tunics, poncho-type garments and a type of pleated trouser and top. These were similar to clothes worn in parts of China at that time. Images of priestess-queens and tribal chiefs in 4th century AD Japan also show figures wearing clothing like those worn by the Han dynasty China.

The first ancestor of the kimono appeared in Japan in the Heian period (794-1185). Still often worn with Chinese-style hakama (pleated trousers or long skirts), this garment was made from straight pieces of cloth fastened with a narrow sash at the hips. By the Edo period (1603-1868), everyone wore a unisex garment known as a kosode, made from straight pieces of fabric sewn together like todays kimono.

In the early 1600s, Japan was unified by the Shogun Tokugawa into a feudal shogunate (a kind of military dictatorship) with Edo (now Tokyo) as the capital.

Japanese culture developed during this period with almost no outside influence, and the kosode, as a precursor to the kimono, came to represent what it meant to be Japanese.

Folk clothing and work clothes were also based on front wrapping (left over right), drop-sleeved tops and fastened with strings or cords following a basic kimono pattern. The role of kimono-making developed, and the value of some kimonos increased to the level of priceless works of art.

After previous eras of a closed Japan, the Meiji era (1868-1912) marked a period of rapid modernisation and foreign influence. The kimono, meaning the thing to wear had a proper name and officially came into being.

This was despite a new imperial edict that rejected old dress as effeminate and un-Japanese. As a result, men, government officials and military personnel were encouraged to wear western clothing, yfuku, rather than traditional wafuku.

But as Japan was undergoing fundamental change on multiple levels, the sight of women wearing kimono was reassuring and a popular symbol of Japaneseness.

Women started wearing more western-style clothes, specifically underwear for women, after the Great Kanto earthquake in 1923. It was felt that a sense of shame in exposing themselves prevented many women from jumping or being rescued from the upper floors of buildings. The possibility that fewer women would have lost their lives in the disaster had they been wearing yfuku or at least underwear beneath their kimonos was a catalyst for general westernisation.

Japans Showa era began in 1926 when Emperor Hirohito ascended to the throne. This period spanned two world wars and the rise of strident cultural ultranationalism and has been described as the most momentous, calamitous, successful and glamorous period in Japans recent history.

For those with a belief in the idea of Japanese uniqueness (Nihonjin-ron), which became especially popular after the second world war, the kimono (along with other aspects of Japanese culture) was considered superior to the western alternative. While the actual wearing of the garment decreased, the kimonos symbolic status in Japan increased.

By the 1930s, Japan was a major colonial power, having transformed from a weak, feudal society into a modern, industrial, military power in the 1890s. As such, the nation had launched territorial conquests into neighbouring countries.

So, while people in Japan were dressing the part in a bold attempt to look powerful to the west, Japanese occupiers in Taiwan and Korea were actively encouraging local women to wear the kimono in order to display Japans superior role and greater east Asian co-prosperity in the region.

A study of how the kimono was perceived in Taiwan and Korea during the Japanese colonial period from 1895 to 1945 showed that the Japanese kimono is clearly linked to Japans colonial control and war responsibilities. The weaponisation of such a beautiful and elegant item of clothing has clearly left its mark.

As the woman who was arrested in China recently was reportedly warned:

If you would be wearing Hanfu (Chinese traditional clothing), I never would have said this, but you are wearing a kimono, as a Chinese. You are Chinese!

The kimono remains a symbol of Japanese tradition and a reminder of the dangers of nationalism for countries of wartime occupation and atrocities. But as Japan is preparing to double its defence budget, raising questions over its pacifist identity since the post-war period, and China is flexing its muscles in Hong Kong and Taiwan, there should be more for officials to worry about than a woman clad in a kimono.

Ella Tennant, Lecturer, Language and Culture, Keele University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Stay updated with all the insights.Navigate news, 1 email day.Subscribe to Qrius

More here:

Is the kimono a symbol of oppression? - Qrius

Life under the Taliban is the worst womens rights crisis on the planet. When the Taliban returned to power last August, they imposed immediate and brutal restrictions, the harshest of which were reserved for women. They quickly imposed a ban on girls secondary education, which remains in place despite domestic and international demands to lift it. They also placed restrictions on womens movement, requiring women to be accompanied by a male family member while traveling, and womens dress, ordering women to cover their faces in public. Girls and women are also no longer allowed to play sports.

Afghan women working for the government, with the exception of those doing jobs in the education and health sectors, were told to stay home and not report to work. The Taliban have also dissolved the Ministry of Womens Affairs and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, an institution that I led until January. These moves have left female victims of domestic violence with no legal remedy or support at a time when there are reports of increased forced marriages, including child marriages. The Taliban have excluded women from appointments in government and participation in major national events, including a large political gathering in June to discuss the countrys future. When a reporter asked Abdul Salam Hanafi, the Talibans deputy prime minister, about the lack of womens participation, Hanafi said that women would be participating, in a way, because their sons would be attending. This kind of rhetoric, along with the new rules, promotes a demeaning narrative about women and their place in society and nullifies two decades worth of positive changes in public attitudes about the social and political roles that should be available to women.

The international communitys response to these events has been pitifully insufficient. Members of the UN Human Rights Council, as well as countries that have explicitly feminist foreign policies, such as Canada, France, Germany, and Sweden, have done little more than make statements of condemnation. The same is true for leaders in the Islamic world. Even imposing a travel ban on Taliban leaders has been a struggle, because Russia and China have blocked it at the UN Security Council. The UN Human Rights Council has yet to establish a strong, well-resourced accountability mechanism for Afghanistan despite repeated calls from the human rights community. Diplomats, including those from the United States, continue to engage with Taliban leaders at international conferences and in bilateral talks that exclude Afghan women and members of Afghan civil society. As a result, for the Afghan women at the forefront of the nonviolent resistance to the Taliban, a disturbing truth has sunk in: they are mostly on their own.

This total abandonment requires those working for womens rights in Afghanistan to question their assumptions about the will and influence of the international community to help. Understanding that foreign partners are not going to show up requires changing the approach of those working in diaspora and on the ground. The focus for the Afghan womens rights movement should be to strengthen its cohesion and prevent any divisiveness between the diaspora and activists inside the country. The Afghan womens rights movement also needs to cultivate new allies inside the country and in the region. These should include Afghan writers, cultural activists, and moderate religious thinkers. Afghan womens rights organizations need to strengthen their partnerships with organizations in Iran, Pakistan, Qatar, and other countries in the region to increase their engagement beyond the Western world. The womens rights movement should invest in long-term social and cultural change in Afghan society through producing and disseminating content about womens rights in local languages, strategic engagement with the Afghan media, and finding resources for educational and cultural exchanges for Afghan youth. Although the womens movement needs to maintain a degree of engagement with Western countries and international human rights bodies, expectations for the international community should be based on a clear-eyed assessment of its near-nonexistent response over the past year.

After the Taliban takeover last summer, Afghan womens lives changed dramatically. For young women across the country, the situation presents a complete absence of hope. I know teenage girls who are suffering severe depression due to the closure of secondary schools. Although universities have not been closed to women, the classes have been separated for women and men and womens clothing is policed. These restrictions have caused some female university students to abandon their studies. They have also lost their motivation to attend school because there are no employment opportunities waiting for them when they graduate. Households where the woman was the top earner now struggle as women have been sent home from their jobs or have had to shut down their businesses. Although the restrictions on womens clothing and movement are not always enforced, they have created an environment of intimidation and fear where the act of leaving ones house now requires immense courage.

As women confront this new reality, they are also reckoning with the severe humanitarian and economic crises that are threatening Afghanistan. An estimated 97 percent of households are unable to meet their basic needs. Tens of thousands of children are suffering malnutrition and being admitted to hospitals every month. Women and girls have been hit the hardest by the humanitarian crisis and lack of access to income, food, and health-care services as most women in the public sector have lost their jobs, and there has been an increase in reports of families selling their daughters into marriage.

Despite their anger, frustration, and loss, women are the only group inside Afghanistan consistently protesting the Talibans policies. Female activists have marched in the streets in Kabul and other cities, demanding the restoration of their basic rights. They have organized public events and spoken about the right to education and the need to reopen schools. Just as they did in the 1990s, when the Taliban were last in power, Afghan women have set up secret schools for girls so that they can continue to learn. The Talibans response to this civic activism has been a brutal crackdown. Female protesters have been violently dispersed, abducted, and held in illegal detention. They have also been subject to forced confessions. The Taliban have further tried to delegitimize female activists by claiming that they have staged their own abductions to seek asylum. Following the Talibans crackdown, the protests have become less frequent and now mostly take place in Kabuland only if participants can ensure that some international media will be present, in the hope that it will offer greater protection. On some occasions, women gather inside their homes and release protest videos from there.

Women in the Afghan diaspora have also mobilized, writing and speaking to shed light on the situation in Afghanistan and pressing Western officials and diplomats to take a variety of actions, including setting up independent monitoring mechanisms to make sure that humanitarian aid reaches Afghan girls and women, increasing political pressure on the Taliban to ensure girls access to education and womens right to employment, and keeping in place targeted travel bans on Taliban leaders. Sanctions placed on the Taliban by the UN Security Council in 2011 banned 135 members of the group from traveling outside the country. But 13 Taliban leaders were granted an exemption so that they could meet officials abroad and travel to talks with the United States in Doha during the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. That exemption was renewed regularly until it finally expired in early August. Now, no Taliban leaders are allowed to travel outside the country. China and Russia are pushing to change this, but Western countries have argued that the number of leaders allowed to travel should be smaller and the approved destinations fewer.

Western support for the travel bans is heartening, but too often the international response to the plight of women in Afghanistan has been hollow condemnations. Although officials from the United States, the EU, and the UN have held many meetings with women activists, there has been little if any concrete follow-up. Womens rights activists have called for the UN Human Rights Council to establish an Afghanistan fact-finding mission, which would investigate human rights violations, but they have received only partial support from the council members. In October 2021, the council appointed Richard Bennett, a longtime human rights official at the UN, as a special rapporteur to monitor and report on the human rights situation in Afghanistan. Bennett traveled to Afghanistan in May and visited womens rights activists, families of victims of various attacks, and members of Afghan civil society. He has said that the Taliban is unparalleled globally in its misogyny and oppression. His report is expected to be released in September. The work of a rapporteur is important, but Bennett is not paid for his work and his team members are not UN staff. Given the ongoing and widespread violations of human rights in Afghanistan, much more is needed. A more robust response would require a fully mandated and resourced investigative mechanism, such as a fact-finding mission or a commission of inquiry, both of which would require mandates from the UN Human Rights Council.

This is not the first time that the demands of Afghan women are falling on deaf ears. Throughout the U.S.-initiated talks with the Taliban, which began under the Trump administration and lasted from 2018 until February 2020, Afghan women campaigned, wrote, and organized mass gatherings to demand an inclusive peace process. But their appeals went unheeded. I attended a round of talks with the Taliban in Doha and heard firsthand their worryingly vague and general statements on womens rights within Islam. Following this, in many interactions with U.S. officials, including Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. envoy who negotiated the Doha deal, I raised concerns about the lack of participation of women and victims of war in the talks and the emptiness of the Talibans reassurances. None of these concerns or warnings were taken seriously. Instead, I and others in the womens movement were constantly told that the Taliban have changed.

Additionally, a convenient counternarrative took hold, pushed by male diplomats and male commentators, who claimed that the demands of Afghan womens rights activists were not representative of rural Afghan women, and instead represented a Western imposition and were therefore not legitimate. In the end, the Doha agreement excluded any references to womens rights, human rights, or civilian protection, key areas of concern for all Afghan people. Even while the United States and its allies made proclamations committing to protect the women of Afghanistan, they let the Taliban set the conditions of the talks. They participated in a process that would decide the fate of millions of Afghan women but that included zero Afghan women at the negotiating table.

This has meant that in addition to standing up to the Taliban and battling patriarchy inside Afghanistan, advocates for the rights of Afghan women have also had to contend with condescension, gaslighting, and marginalization at the hands of Western officials and alleged experts on Afghanistan. Women activists who fled Afghanistan after the Taliban took control last summer have had to endure this while also navigating the bureaucracies of various Western countries as they try to gain legal asylum. Although Western leaders have talked for the last two decades about supporting Afghan women, at critical junctures, where womens rights activists rights and lives are on the line, Western countries have provided limited support for them or their cause, exposing a deep hypocrisy.

None of this is to say that the situation in Afghanistan is an easy challenge to solve. The Taliban won the war, and nobody wants to stand by and watch Afghans starve in a humanitarian crisis. So outside powers and organizations must deal with the Taliban regime in at least a limited way.

Afghan women protesting in Kabul, December 2021

Yet Western officials have exercised poor judgment in picking their Taliban interlocutors and in setting the public tone of their engagement. Consider, for example, how Western governments and even the UN continue to deal with Sirajuddin Haqqani, Afghanistans acting interior minister and the leader of the Haqqani network, who remains on the FBIs most wanted list because of his involvement in some of the bloodiest terrorist attacks in Afghanistan over the last 20 years. The world was reminded of his ties to al Qaeda earlier this summer when a U.S. drone strike killed al Qaedas leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was living in Kabul in a house owned by a top aide to Haqqani, according to U.S. intelligence.

Western officials may have to meet with Haqqani, but they should be mindful of how their interactions further normalize him and whitewash his deeply problematic background. In June, in a tweet noting a farewell meeting between Haqqani and Deborah Lyons, the outgoing Afghanistan representative for the UN Secretary-General, the UN used the honorific term al hajj in referring to Haqqani, which is typically reserved for people who have completed a pilgrimage to Mecca and connotes a level of respect. The tweet referred to discussions between him and Lyons on issues including counterterrorism, which infuriated Afghan human rights activists who have worked with victims of the Haqqani networks terrorist attacks for years.

It is possible to deliver foreign aid through Afghan and international nongovernmental organizations without having to cozy up to some of the worlds most wanted terrorists. The EU is one of the biggest contributors of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and EU Special Envoy Tomas Niklasson has continued to be outspoken about the human rights issues and violations by the Taliban. He also engages with Afghan women and men outside the Talibans leadership.

What has become excruciatingly clear is that Afghan womens rights activists should not assume that the leaders of the democratic world will stand with them; such leaders and the institutions they represent no longer have much ability to protect Afghan women, nor much interest in doing so. Afghan womens rights activists should also not assume that the leaders in Muslim-majority countries will pressure the Taliban into protecting even the most basic rights, such as girls access to education. It has been a year since the Talibans return to power, and not a single government leader from the Islamic world has issued a strong condemnation of the Talibans oppression of women, let alone applied any meaningful political pressure. Pakistani leaders, for instance, have continued engaging with the Taliban as if it is business as usual, while women in Afghanistan are imprisoned in their homes by the Talibans misogynistic and un-Islamic policies.

These are difficult realizations for the Afghan womens movement. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, many American politicians spoke about the protection of Afghan women as part of the war on terror, and a great deal of the progress that Afghan women experienced in the two decades that followed depended on the United States. Afghan women leaders learned to put pressure on foreign embassies and Western politicians to push the Afghan government to improve legal protections for women and to enhance its own performance on gender equality. In some cases, Afghan women invested more time cultivating relationships with donors and allies in the West than in the communities they intended to serve. This is one of the dynamics that needs to change to ensure the movements continued effectiveness and relevance on the ground.

The weak international response to the plight of Afghan women also reflects the ineffectiveness of the global human rights system. Afghanistan is a signatory to many treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, but none of these commitments are serving the needs of Afghan women and girls under the Taliban regime. International agreements on human rights often rely on naming and shaming wrongdoers. But the current situation in Afghanistan exposes the limits of that approach, as the Taliban themselves admit to widespread violations of womens rights. They have no shame. Unless there are concrete punishments on them, such as banning their travel or excluding their leaders from regional and international platforms, naming them will do nothing.

Coming to grips with the international communitys limited commitment to human rights should not deter Afghan womens rights activists from carrying on with their struggle. They must continue to demand the worlds attention, seek increased humanitarian aid, and push for a sense of urgency in responding to the economic crisis. And they should continue to call out foreign leaders and countries who normalize the Talibans oppression of womens rights.

They must also remember, however, that this is only half the battle, and that little can be achieved without increasing regional and domestic pressure on the Taliban. Afghan women in the diaspora should align with and support the civil society in Afghanistan in that effort. Creating a broader domestic alliance in support of womens rights will require creativity and patience. Afghan women should mobilize civil society in the region and in Islamic countries to more forcefully stand in support of Afghan womens rights. This can be achieved by Afghan women leaders in the diaspora investing more time and resources in regional engagements and building strategic partnerships in the region. Women in the Afghan diaspora should act in solidarity with their sisters on the ground, amplifying their demands by providing platforms to activists in Afghanistan and facilitating their access to the networks and resources outside the country. The long-term strategic goal of the movement should be broader cultural and social change in support of womens rights among Afghans, not just exerting external pressure on the Taliban.

The Talibans systematic oppression of women will have devastating implications for generations to come. To change the situation in Afghanistan, activists must go beyond knocking on the same doors and hearing only the same halfhearted statements of support. Meanwhile, if the international community continues its desultory approach to womens rights in Afghanistan, it will lose its credibility on the issue across the globe.

Loading...Please enable JavaScript for this site to function properly.

Read more:

Afghanistan's Women Are on Their Own: How the International Community Turned Its Back - Foreign Affairs Magazine

By Jeffery Tram

Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

It has been a month since Pope Francis left Canada after apologizing for the Catholic Churchs role in residential schools after so many years of silence and denial, and there is still no concrete plan to make reparations or provide more resources to Indigenous communities.

Over the past few years, there have been many apologies to different communities, from the police brutality on the Black community to the Asian community for Asian hate crimes after hysteria behind the COVID-19 pandemic.

What did yet another apology without concrete actions really mean? Whats the path forward in a country that is undergoing rapid demographic change thanks to immigration?

The answer to whats next, advocates say, is dependent on continuing pressure on the church and other institutions to make real changes.

And that pressure should come, advocates say, through building strong solidarity among marginalized groups (including Blacks and immigrants of colour), to combat systemic oppression.

I dont believe a single word of his Pope Francis apology, says Trey Robinson, an Afro-Ojibwe photographer. Now all of a sudden, you care?

Kennedy Aliu, a Nigerian international development and law student at Oxford University, points to the headdress that Pope Francis wore as an example of how the apology is more a spectacle and symbolic, rather than a genuine attempt at reconciliation.

It is a way for them to protect their public image, Aliu says. That does not mean they truly believe in the message they are presenting.

Plan for change

An apology means nothing when there is no concrete groundwork to it. That is why many marginalized communities are tired of hearing it.

Aliu says that actions speak louder than words, and when there is inaction after the apology, or even a contradiction of the message by actions such as voting for policies that make it worse, the words become nothing but lies.

How can you say that you care about the issues when you are an active participant in my dehumanization? Aliu asks.

Vannary Kong is a member of the US Senate Armed Services Committee and the founder of the US-ASEAN Young Professionals Association. She talks about how these messages from politicians are just a publicity stunt.

You talk about how there needs to be change, yet you are in the position to make the change, says Kong.

She mentions how politicians and public figures use common talking points from the popular consensus to garner support, especially during a campaign for office. After, more times than not, the promises fall through, and marginalized communities continue to lose.

With the Asian hate crimes, there was a public declaration of solidarity through speeches and PR statements, but when it came to actually starting the conversation around making the change, it was absolutely silent, says Kong.

Robinson says rectifying the problems in the Indigenous communities has always been a talking point, especially during election time. He remembers watching debates where they would dedicate segments to the Indigenous issues, where political leaders would discuss what they would do to help. But as Robinson says, nothing came out of it.

I remember Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promising during the first election that he would be there for us, he says. A decade later, and things are still the same.

For Robinson, real plans would include reparations forresidential school survivors and resources for Indigenous communities dealing with poverty and mental health issues. He says both the Canadian government and the Catholic Church should work in conjunction to make this happen, as they have the funds.

However, Robinson has very little faith that this will happen.

Recently, Trudeau nominated Michelle OBonsawin, an Indigenous woman, to the Supreme Court of Canada. As historical and symbolic this milestone is, until there are plans that are actually being put in place to create change, the skepticism around the genuineness of the intentions of people of power will always be there.

Power to the people

With a constant cycle of inauthentic apologies and being misled with broken promises, how do we change it? Aliu says it starts with building unity among marginalized groups.

Even though each community goes through different experiences, there are parallels in the route of the issues.

When we look at the issues of marginalized populations, our oppression is often interrelated to each other, says Aliu. Our oppression is quite universal.

Kong says an important aspect in oppression is that it is deeply institutional.

When you trace the roots of oppression, it is clearly systemic, says Kong. It was made to deliberately create a better experience for some people than others.

Kong talks about how neo-colonialism is still evidently prevalent in the world today. She cites how Catholicism affects ASEAN countries in slowly eradicating traditional cultures and religions.

This was a way to control dominance and superiority that stems from white supremacy, and is a familiar theme to what happened to Indigenous people in Canada.

In understanding that the root of what caused oppression toward BIPOC communities in the past is still prevalent today, it evidently shows that there is still so much more work to do.

That is why it is instrumental for people to continuously apply pressure on institutions of power by using your voice.

Aliu makes the point that if a united group of people is large enough, it can apply pressure toward change.

It does not necessarily guarantee that change will come, but it will increase the chances, he says.

He references the public outrage around the tragedy of George Floyd that forced many institutions to take real accountability and look at policy reform that created a more inclusive environment for everyone.

It is unfortunate that it took an absolute tragedy like George Floyd for there to be change, but at least it is happening, Aliu says.

Aliu says that the Black Lives Matter movement helped inspire other communities to come together, despite feeling powerless in society.

Even though we come from marginalized communities, that does not mean that we have to be powerless, he says. That is what they want us to feel.

Through unity among marginalized communities, it will create a bigger sense of power than ever before, one that could possibly one day completely eradicate systemic oppression.

Jeffery Tram is a Local Journalism Initiative Reporter who works for the

NEW CANADIAN MEDIA. The LJI program is federally funded. Turtle Island News does not receive LJI funding.

Read the rest here:

Minority groups say they are tired of apologies that are more spectacle than action - Turtle Island News