Category Archives: Government Oppression

The media told us that Qassem Soleimani was beloved, but they weren't telling the truth. The media told us that President TrumpDonald John TrumpKaine: Obama called Trump a 'fascist' during 2016 campaign Kaine: GOP senators should 'at least' treat Trump trial with seriousness of traffic court Louise Linton, wife of Mnuchin, deletes Instagram post in support of Greta Thunberg MOREs strike on Soleimani would unify Iran behind its terrorist regime, but they werent telling the truth there either.

In recent days, weve seen the people of Iran rise up to refute the propaganda that Soleimani was a beloved general and unequivocally condemn a corrupt government that wastes billions on terror adventurism around the world.

Weve seen Iranians take to the streets to protest their governments shootdown of a plane full of innocent civilians.

Weve seen Iranians walk around American and Israeli flags on the ground rather than trample on them.

Weve seen Iranians declare, They are lying that our enemy is America! Our enemy is right here!

While Democrats have scorned President Trumps actions and mourned the terrorist leader Soleimanis death, these anti-government protests show that Trumps Iran policy of containment is working.

By acting decisively to take out Soleimani, President Trump has shown solidarity with a people held hostage to a brutal and murderous terrorist regime.

By pursuing a strategy of containment, rather than the last administrations strategy of appeasement, President Trump has opened a window of opportunity with Iran that is playing out even now.

Containment brought down the Soviet Union. Appeasement didn't.

When the United States contended with the Soviet Union in the Cold War, containment hemmed in the expansion of communism until the Soviet Union's own internal weaknesses forced it to abandon its dreams of empire.

Containment allowed America to counter Soviet pressure through a patient but vigilant reining in of the Soviet Unions expansive tendencies.

By not withdrawing into isolationism, but also not violating the sovereignty of Eastern European nations, America's strategy of containment led to the breakup of Soviet power and the collapse of communism.

Containment worked throughout history, and it works today.

The people of Iran are yearning for freedom and liberty. They are fed up with an oppressive government that habitually chooses to undermine their well-being and security, and they are destabilizing Irans regime from within.

In the past three months, Irans leaders have killed 1,500 protestors, injured 4,800 protestors, and arrested over 7,000 protestors. Only last week, their security forces continued to respond to protests with violence by firing live ammunition and tear gas into the crowds.

As Irans regime continues to reveal its brutality and oppression, its becoming ever clearer to the world, to America, and to the people of IranIran must change its pattern of aggression, abandon its nuclear ambitions, and respect the freedom and liberties of its citizens.

Just as in the Cold War, containment is the best way for America to stand with the Iranian people and pursue security in an evolving bipolar world.

This strategy creates incredible risk. It also provides a remarkable opportunity to win alliances, contain aggression, and stand for freedom. President Donald Trump is doing just that.

As they determine their future, the Iranian people are not alone. America stands with the people of Iran as they fight for their freedom and speak out against oppression. As President Trump continues his strategy of containment, we remain committed to standing in solidarity with those who love freedom.

Rep. Mark GreenMark GreenPresident Trump's Iran strategy is working Trump says he will 'temporarily hold off' on declaring Mexican drug cartels as terror organization Trump says he will designate Mexican drug cartels as terror organizations MORE is a graduate of West Point and a combat veteran who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was part of the mission to capture Saddam Hussein, and he interviewed Saddam Hussein for six hours on the night of his capture. He serves on the House Homeland Security and Oversight committees.

See the rest here:

President Trump's Iran strategy is working | TheHill - The Hill

Like Vasudev, he too has grabbed land, with or without government complicity like in the Aravalli or the elephant corridor in Assam - which should not really belong to him.

He was doing pretty well until he decided to escape from the Ramlila Grounds in New Delhi in women's clothing and gratuitously equated that with Chhatrapati Shivajis daring escape from Aurangzebs prison in Agra. Since then, instead of sticking to his kapalbhati and anulom-vilom which, admittedly, he had a huge hand in popularising, he has claimed to be the original formulator of the Demonetisation theory as a means to curb black money.

If true, we all by now know what a disastrous policy demonetisation was and all the more reason for the government to put a twenty feet wide distance between themselves and Ramdev. But failure and exposure just does not stop Ramdev. After suggesting that he would behead anyone who does not chant Bharat Mata ki jai (what about those who prefer Jai Hind instead, I wonder, like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and Indira Gandhi) Ramdev now is calling on the government to take action against all those clamouring for freedom from the governments oppression.

Read the original post:

When sarkari Gurus, Babas and godmen remind you of Tsarist Russia and Rasputin - National Herald

The Environmental Protection Agency suppressed the work of its career employees and dismissed legitimate science in taking a key deregulatory action, dozens of former and current employees have alleged. The employeesare asking investigators to discipline the top officials responsible.

The complaint, issued by the nonprofit advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, concerned orders from EPAs top brass during its process of repealing the Waters of the United States rule implemented during the Obama administration. The current and former employees, made up mostly of EPA staff but also ofArmy Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service workers, called on the EPA inspector general and scientific integrity officer to launch investigations and hold the political appointees accountable. They named EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and a half-dozen top officials in the agencys offices of Water and General Counsel in their complaint.

The complainants said political leadership consistently violated provisions of EPAs Scientific Integrity Policy throughout the deregulatory process. That included when career employees were explicitly cautioned not to provide formal comments on the rule that would then become part of its docket, resulting in those comments being withheld from the public. This also violated a provision of the integrity policy that prohibits leadership from intimidating or coercing scientists to alter scientific data, findings or professional opinions, PEER wrote on behalf of the former and current employees.

PEER noted its complaint reflected the views of all 44 signatories and multiple individuals could personally substantiate each of the allegations. The rule, commonly referred to as WOTUS, defines what is subject to EPA anti-pollution enforcement under the 1972 Clean Water Act. A 2015 EPA rule significantly expanded that definition.

Ketina Elbaum, a spokeswoman for the EPA inspector generals office, said it had received the complaint and it would be under review soon by our leadership team. The science integrity office had yet to formally receive the letter as of Tuesday afternoon. Upon receipt, the officewill determine whetherthe allegations would indeed amount to a violation of the integrity policy. At that point, it would inform complainants about potential limitations to confidentiality before creating a timeline of events. It would then pore over documents and talk to all relevant parties to hear both sides before presenting its findings to a subcommittee to draw a conclusion. That panel would not recommend any discipline, but instead determine what steps, if any, were necessary to uphold scientific standards.

That review would take between six weeks and six months, and the office would likely coordinate with the IG. It could defer to the IG entirely if, for example, it determined the case was too high profile to handle. Francesca Grifo, EPAs top scientific integrity official, said at a public meeting last year her office takes formal allegations seriously. When it receives one, she said, her staff goes a little crazy over it.

The regulatory rollback, finalized in September, also violated the scientific integrity policy by failing to use the highest quality science, the complainants said. EPA dismissed key research and scientific findings used during the 2015 process, they explained, while noting EPAs own scientific advisory board criticized the WOTUS degulation as a departure from recognized science.

EPA officials instructed employees to respond to public comments from a policy or legal stance, rather than a scientific one, the complaint alleged, which PEER said led to the stifling and oppression of science and experts opinions. The complainants said the rule was not merely a difference in scientific opinion, but instead amounted to excluding and manipulating established science. The integrity policy calls for the highest quality of science, but PEER suggested EPA instead suppressed it.

Political appointees dismissed [career scientists] with no justification, the former and current workers said, and in the process politicized the agencys analysis.

EPA has qualified expert scientists on staff at [headquarters] and across the country, but this expertise was suppressed and dismissed, the complainants concluded. Because of this, EPAs career employees were not given the opportunity to do their best work or contribute their expertise to the development of the rule.

They cautioned a failure to act would set a dangerous precedent going forward.

Failing to take actions in this matter will show that EPA has abandoned all pretense of making science-based decisions, which is counter to its mission of protecting human health and the environment, they said.

Inquiries at EPAs Science Integrity Office have spiked under the Trump administration. Employees at agencies like EPA, NASA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have previously told Government Executive they are facing unprecedented interference from political leadership, including rollbacks of previous work and meddling in research. Scientists reported being left out of key meetings, feeling fearful in their offices and a general sense of low morale. A Union of Concerned Scientists survey in 2018 found federal employees felt stymied by censorship and interference from political appointees, including 50% who said political considerations were hindering agencies' ability to make science-based decisions.

View original post here:

Career Employees Allege EPA Leaders Silenced Them on Key Deregulation Effort - GovExec.com

The opposition parties on Thursday slammed Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath for warning anti-CAA protesters that azadi slogans raised by them will treated as sedition.

While the Samajwadi Party drew an analogy with the British rule, the Congress termed it a language of dictators.

The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister in a rally in Kanpur on Wednesday had said,If azadi slogans are raised here like they used to be raised in Kashmir, then it will come in the category of sedition and stringent action will be taken by the government.

Reacting to it, Senior SP leader Ram Govind Chaudhary said the British too had described freedom fighters as terrorists.

Now their successors or those who had sided with them are terming those raising azadi slogans traitors, he said.

He said there was no need to to get perturbed by such warnings. Their countdown has started and that is why they are ranting, Mr. Chaudhary said.

The SP leader alleged that the Chief Minister was threatening women against those hell bent on dividing the country.

Azadi is the birthright of all countrymen and those denying it will have to depart in the same manner as Hitler, the SP leader said.

SP spokesman Rajendra Chaudhary too said the dissent against the CAA is being dubbed as treason by the chief minister, which is against the very essence of a democracy.

The Chief Minister is threatening women who are demanding their rights, Mr. Chaudhary asserted.

When asked about the chief ministers allegation that the SP was funding anti-CAA protests, Chaudhary said, This amounts to making a mockery of peoples emotions.

Protests are on in all the states, including north-eastern region. Are we distributing money in all states, Mr. Chaudhary wondered.

Meanwhile, Uttar Pradesh Congress president Ajay Kumar Lallu said the CM is speaking a language of dictators.

If raising voice against the governments oppression and politics of hatred is treason, the government should first arrest me, Mr. Lallu said, adding that since the protests have rattled the government, it is accusing the Congress of sponsoring them.

If people are on agitation path over this issue, why is the government not addressing it, Lallu said.

At a public meeting in Kanpur, the chief minister had said, ...I would like to say from the soil of India, and especially the soil of Uttar Pradesh, that in the name of protests, if azadi slogans are raised here like they used to be raised in Kashmir, then it will come in the category of sedition, and stringent action will be taken by the government.

You have reached your limit for free articles this month.

Register to The Hindu for free and get unlimited access for 30 days.

Find mobile-friendly version of articles from the day's newspaper in one easy-to-read list.

Enjoy reading as many articles as you wish without any limitations.

A select list of articles that match your interests and tastes.

Move smoothly between articles as our pages load instantly.

A one-stop-shop for seeing the latest updates, and managing your preferences.

We brief you on the latest and most important developments, three times a day.

Not convinced? Know why you should pay for news.

*Our Digital Subscription plans do not currently include the e-paper ,crossword, iPhone, iPad mobile applications and print. Our plans enhance your reading experience.

View post:

Opposition slams UP CM Yogi Adityanath for warning to anti-CAA protesters - The Hindu

One head off by Nikahang Kowsar, the writers father, a political cartoonist. Originally published here.

What has unfolded since the morning of January 3, 2020 has been incredibly difficult for me to unpack as an Iranian-born Canadian citizen and a U.S. permanent resident. To summarize the sequence of events, the United States, under President Donald Trump launched an airstrike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the leader of the Quds Force, sparking an escalation in tensions between the Iranian regime and the U.S.. Iran then launched over a dozen missiles to two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops. Four or so hours later, a Ukrainian passenger plane, UIA Flight 752, crashed in Tehran after take-off. After initially blaming the crash of engine failure, the Iranian government admitted to mistakenly launching a surface-to-air missile (some reports now say two missiles were launched).

To put it simply, the recent events involving the Iranian regime have been overwhelming. Although I am against escalating tensions in the Middle East, the narratives of Soleimani and the Iranian regime presented in western media, specifically concerning Soleimanis popularity and the general opinion of the Iranian people, are entirely false. It is disheartening that world powers economically involved with Iran have turned a blind eye to the Iranian regimes ongoing abuse of power and attempts to silence its opposition. The powerful individuals within the Iranian regime are not humans: they are monsters who must be held accountable for all the pain and suffering they have caused their innocent people and those affected by Soleimanis actions outside of Iran.

I am adamantly against the current regime and its treatment of the Iranian people. My family would not have had to leave Iran if the regime allowed its citizens to practice their human rights. As my father likes to say, there may be freedom of speech, but there is no freedom after speech. The Islamic Republic of Iran consists of a broken government, economic disparity and minimal human rights, where the Ayatollahs and the rich become richer and the rest are left to suffer. I have always wished for the fall of this disgraceful regime, and hope the death of Qasem Soleimani could be the beginning of the end.

Soleimani, who dictated Irans foreign policy, was the second most powerful man in the country. He was personally sanctioned by the U.S., the European Union, and the United Nations, and the U.S. even deemed him a terrorist. Until his death, many of you may not have even heard his name. But to many Iranians, he was either seen as a selfless hero or a murderer. Soleimanis minority of supporters was made up of regime sympathizers who favored expansionism and military interventionism in hopes of returning to the glory Iranians once enjoyed during the Persian Empire.

Under Soleimanis leadership, the Quds Force has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, as well as hundreds of U.S. soldiers in the region. The Islamic Republics financial and military support for its proxies and allies is alarming because it has placed greater importance on power over the condition of the Iranian people.

The Iranian regime declared the days that followed Soleimanis death national days of mourning, closing businesses, workplaces and schools during that period. Protests erupted in some cities with Soleimani supporters chanting death to America. The Iran state media outlets released videos of the streets of major cities packed with black-clad mourners. The funeral procession for Soleimani eventually led to a stampede that killed 70 mourners and injured over 100 other people.

It is difficult to gauge the reactions of Iranians living in Iran because of the restrictions on communication within the country. A prominent tweet reposted by Shaun King, an outspoken civil rights advocate and journalist, claimed 82% of Iranians inside the country looked favorably upon Qasem Soleimani. This statistic originated from a 2019 study conducted by the University of Marylands School of Public Policy. This data was collected by interviewing 1,000 Iranians inside the country via phone interviews. The methodology of this study is problematic because it is a common belief in Iran that the government has all phones tapped, so how could Iranians comfortably express their true opinion over a presumably tapped phone?

A more credible study done in 2018 by the Group Analyzing and Measuring Attitudes in Iran (GAMAAN) surveyed over 19,000 Iranians, 80% of whom lived inside Iran, through a secure online survey platform shared via social media networks. Only 0.2% of respondents said they would vote for Qasem Soleimani in a free election. While I understand that not all of Soleimanis supporters would vote for him for president, these findings are an indicator of Soleimanis perceived popularity among Iranians.

Prominent American news media outlets have brought on foreign policy experts and political analysts to weigh in on the escalating tensions with the Iranian regime, deafening the public to important matters at hand. Republicans have proudly supported the accomplishment of Trump in ordering the airstrike that killed a terrorist. Democrats have expressed their fears of what the regime and its allies may do, and have focused on how the crisis is Trumps way of diverting attention from his impeachment.

Since the UIA Flight 752 crash, U.S. media coverage has diminished because the crisis no longer appeals to the U.S. public or the political agenda of U.S. politicians. But the crisis in Iran is not just a political matter: it is a matter of human rights and holding a corrupt regime accountable. These events remain relevant to millions of innocent Iranians who continue to live through the dire conditions, even if theyre not deemed important enough to be covered by U.S. media.

U.S. media coverage has diminished because the crisis no longer appeals to the U.S. public or the political agenda of U.S. politicians.

In a recent interview, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked whether she supported the protesters in Iran. She diminished the majority of protesters opposing the regime by focusing her response on protests involving Solemanis supporters because they were protesting against the U.S.. Pelosis disregard for the majority of Iranians is a representation of how the Iranian people have been treated by foreign governments, which have disregarded the regimes oppression of the Iranian peoples rights.

The IRGC has a long history of hindering the Iranian peoples right to freely express their opinions: most recently, over 1,500 were killed during the November 2019 unrest protesting the exponential spike in fuel prices. Since the regimes admission of guilt to their role in the UIA Flight 752 crash, thousands of protesters have flooded the streets of major Iranian cities, chanting Shame on you to the IRGC forces and calling for Ayatollah Khamenei to step down. The IRGCs response? Firing tear gas and sometimes shooting and killing its own people.

Irrespective of international response, the Iranian government will continue to silence its own people with excessive force throughout these protests because this crisis has placed them in a vulnerable position. During these trying times of conflict, I ask you to go after the facts and to not be afraid to question what your favorite politicians may say. Evidence surrounding these events will continue to come out, and the Iranian people will continue to risk their lives by sharing damning evidence on social media platforms displaying the regimes troubling actions in hopes of uncovering the truth that the regime frequently tries to hide from the world. Innocent Iranians have suffered far too long and deserve to be heard. The Iranian regime refuses to give a voice to the voiceless, so as a free society, we must hear those who are trying to speak up.

Niki Kowsar is a member of the Middlebury class of 2021.5

Read more:

The crisis in Iran: An oppressive regime and its voiceless people - Middlebury Campus

The closure in Sudan earlier this month of four media outlets believed to have been connected to former ruler Omar al-Bashir's government has attracted international criticism following a period of praise regarding improvements that had been made over the freedom of the press.

The decision to close the Al-Sudani and Al-Ray Al-Am newspapers, as well as the satellite channels of Ashrooq and Teeba, over alleged corruption and financing by the National Congress Party (NCP), Bashir's former ruling party, has also caused controversy within the country.

Sudan seizes assets of Omar al-Bashir's former ruling party

The four media outlets were closed on 8 January as part of a broader effort to dismantle the NCP and all its affiliated entities.

In November, the country's transitional authorities announced a law to dissolve the NCP, which also allowed for the party's assets to be seized.

The committee that ordered the closure of the media outlets said the aim was to examine their bank accounts and establish whether they were still being financed by members of the former government.

Other institutions affected included the Holy Quran society, which was closed down over similar allegations, and the International University of Africa, based in Khartoum, which was ordered to be audited.

Taha Othman, a member of the sovereign council legal committee, said the Ministry of Religious Affairs would now manage the Holy Quran society.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) all condemned the decision to close the media outlets.

Reporters Without Borders condemns the new Sudanese governments sudden closure of four media outlets that supported the former regime and asks it to show concern for the fate of their more than 200 journalists," RSF said in a press release.

"Instead of closing media outlets, the authorities should make sure the Sudanese media comply with a code of ethics.

Sudan is ranked 175th out of 180 countries in RSFs 2019 World Press Freedom Index.

In a statement on its official website, the IFJ said: In a new move to curb press freedom, the Sudanese government announced the seizure of four independent media houses, including two newspapers and TV-channels.

"Their offices have been occupied by security forces and all employees have been ordered to leave

The CPJ called on Sudanese authorities to revise the decision.

Sudanese authorities should end the suspension of these newspapers and TV stations and ensure that press freedom does not become collateral damage during a sensitive moment, it said.

All four media outlets and the Holy Quran society have denied receiving money from the NCP.

Wagdi Salih, spokesman for theAnti-Corruption Committee, which has been tasked with dismantling the NCP and its affiliated entities, defending the decision to close down the media outlets.

Salih accused them of receiving illegal finance, money laundering and looting public funds, among other financial crimes.

'Its a big joke that the supporters of the old regime are now crying for the freedom of press and expression that they oppressed everyday through the 30 years of their ruling'

-Wagdi Salih, Anti-Corruption Committee

He told Middle East Eye that the decision to close the outlets had nothing to do with the freedom of the press or freedom of expression in the country.

We are tracking the illegal ownership of these institutions, not their editorial policies or what they wrote, Salih stressed.

Its a big joke that the supporters of the old regime are now crying for the freedom of press and expression that they oppressed everyday through the 30 years of their ruling.

Salih said the committee had hard evidence and information they had received from the security organs and other institutions concerned proving that the outlets had basically been established and financed by the former ruling party.

Our aim and mandate asis to return the looted money to the nation because its one of the main demands of the revolution so we wont abandon our task...We will press on to dismantle all institutions that looted the money of the Sudanese people, regardless of them working in the media or any other area.

In a news conference last week, Rashid Saeed, the undersecretary of the Sudanese ministry of information, said that Ashrooq had been established by money paid following an order from Bashir.

He also said that the transitional government had suspended the media outlets under the law authorising authorities to seize the assets and funds of the former regime, and not because of their editorial line.

They spent millions of euros to establish this channel with public money, also for the Teeba channel, the former president himself has admitted in front of the court that he paid for them from public money, said Saeed.

For example, for the Holy Quran society, we found that it owns a gold mining site, this is clear corruption that we would never tolerate."

Inside Sudan, journalists and pro-democracy protesters were split over the closure, with some supporting the transitional government's committee tasked with the dismantling of the former ruling party, while others opposed the action, arguing the decision went against the message of the revolution.

Diya Aldin Bilal, the chief editor of Al-Sudani, one of the newspapers that was closed down, accused the transitional government of silencing the voices of journalists and any opposition, adding that they are practising the same attitude of the old regime.

Sudan opens Darfur crimes probe against former Bashir officials

Addressing a news conference in Khartoum earlier this month, Bilal denied any links with or the financing of his newspaper with the old regime.

We have nothing to do with the old regime's money or political positions, but the current government is practicing the same oppression against the media, he said.

Unfortunately, the Sudanese politicians are changing their views according to their political position and the government of the Forces ofFreedom and Change has changed its slogans and the principles that they claimed that they had come to defend when they came to the power.

However, Khalid Fathi, the secretary general of the Sudanese Journalist Network, welcomed the decision, saying its aim was to fight corruption and to control the assets of NCP, and had nothing to do with freedom of expression.

We have to take these outlets case by case, as for example with Teeba the authorities have received complaints from Nigeria and Ethiopia that this channel is broadcasting hate discourse in local languages in these countries," he told MEE.

"For Ashrooq and Al-Ray Al-Am it is known that they have been financed by the former ruling party, the controversy is now about the ownership of Al-Sudani, and that can be easily checked by the general auditor.

This moveis for fighting corruption and is actually supporting transparency and the rule of law.

"But the committee dismantling the old regime's institutions is supposed to be cautious and needs to double check the information it receives, especially about the media houses, because this issue is sensitive and can be linked to freedom of expression.

Sudanese political analyst Magdi el-Gizouli, a scholar at the Rift Valley Institute (RVI) think tank, believes that the transitional government should be focusing on more pressing threats to democracy in Sudan, rather than the banning of newspapers.

The real threats to democracy in Sudan are not the newspapers, but the security organs, the army leaders and the militias, they are all now on the top of the government following the compromise made between the civilians and the military, he said.

The reformation of the security sector is the priority, not the media.

I wonder how the new rulers, who were freedom fighters resisting the former regime, are now trusting the security organs which were part of the old regime, and receive their reports regarding the assets and investments of the former ruling party from them.

See original here:

Cries of censorship in Sudan as media outlets linked to old regime closed - Middle East Eye

The most dangerous saying is: Its how weve always done it. I think that phrase stops people from evolving and creating a society that can be far more inclusive than it is right now.

I appreciate questioning things by looking at the situation and how following the standard practice is hindering people within the system. We need to question things. These questions shouldnt just be wordsmithing or laying blame, but digging deep into the root of the problems. Its these roots that create systems that lead to oppression.

For example, look at common hiring practices. Most non-government jobs will post a job and not list the salary. Then, during the screening process, a potential candidate is asked what they are either expecting to make or what they currently make.

You might be reading this and thinking: Yeah, sounds about right. Whats the issue?

To me, there are plenty of issues. First of all, if someone really needs a job, they will 100 per cent say a lower number than desired to ensure they arent counted out for the position. That lower number is then tied to them.

For people from other cultures, including Indigenous communities, humility is a virtue that is culturally ingrained. Being humble will also play a role in someone proposing a lower salary.

When a position is created, there is always a range of what the employer is willing to pay, usually a range depending on experience.

Lets say there is a position that the employer is willing to pay $60,000 to $65,000 annually, and the candidate said they are looking for a job paying $55,000. I dont think many employers would turn around and say: Weve seen your resum, and you are fully qualified, and we want to offer you the position at $65,000.

If I am wrong, please let me know.

When a candidate discloses their current salary to a potential employer, its saying this is where my current employer values my performance.

There is no denying that there is a wage gap between women and men, minorities and the majority and people with disabilities. If people have been discriminated against in previous positions and had their performance valued as less than, it is going to follow them throughout their career and continue to be an uphill battle.

Theres an easy way to solve this issue, and thats by selecting the salary range for the position, which in most cases is already there, and then paying the new hire that amount. If you take a chance on someone with less experience and they can do the job, why should they get paid less, just because you can?

If someone currently makes $32,000 and applies for a $50,000 job and can do the job, they should get $50,000.

This removes bias from the situation and levels the playing field. I know there is the argument of saving money and not spending more than you have to, but I really think following these archaic guidelines are keeping people oppressed. Not in every situation, but I am sure it happens.

Granted, its important to reiterate that the oppression could have initially taken place early in someones career, and they are continually paying for it. It might not be their current employer, even their past two or three employers who are consciously valuing their performance as less. Its unintentional, and thats what makes this tricky. Laying blame is dangerous, but educating people on the whole picture might change internal hiring practices.

Think of women in your family, a friend with a disability, or other people youve worked with who are minorities.

I think its important to question things, and by question I dont mean openly criticizing without a valid solution to the problem. I want to reiterate that its not wordsmithing, either. Weve all sat at a table where someone doesnt really want to change the content, but the diction, grammar or sentence structure. The wordsmith either wants to make everything perfect, in their vision, or to waste peoples time while trying to demonstrate how smart they are.

Lets not find fault to demonstrate dominance, because thats the whole issue I am trying to address.

Charla Huber is the director of communications and Indigenous relations for Makola Housing Society.

See the original post:

Charla Huber: Pay people what they are worth - Times Colonist

The International Court of Justices (ICJ) order to the government of the Republic of Myanmar to adopt various provisional measures to protect the Rohingya community from physical destruction is a decision of tremendous significance.

The order also requires Myanmar to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article 11 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, including killing members of the group and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group,

The order also urges the Myanmar military as well as any regular armed units which may be directed or supported by (the military) and any organisation or person which may be subject to its control, direction or influence not to commit genocide or be complicit in acts of genocide.

The government of Myanmar is also required in the order to submit a report to the ICJ on all measures intended to give effect to the order within four months and thereafter every six months until a final decision on the case is rendered by the court.

Needless to say, the government of Myanmar has rejected the ICJs order. It denies that there has been any genocide against the Rohingya.

However, reports from independent human rights observers and from Rohingya themselves many of them refugees living in other countries tell a different story.

It is this evidence adduced by the government of the Gambia, especially its Justice Minister Abubacarr Tambadou, which convinced the ICJ panel that the allegations of genocide against the Myanmar government had a basis.

The world should now use the ICJs stand to mount a massive global campaign on behalf of the oppressed and discriminated Rohingya.

It should in fact go beyond the ICJs order and address the root cause of the suffering of the Rohingya people.

Stripping them of their Myanmar citizenship in 1982 is what is largely responsible for their oppression and marginalisation.

This is why the world, in endorsing the ICJs decision, should also plead with the Myanmar government to restore the citizenship of all Rohingya who qualify for citizenship.

The media, both old and new, have a critical role to play. It is disappointing that even in their coverage of the ICJ decision, most of the media have been somewhat lukewarm. There has been very little support by way of follow-up articles and the like.

And yet the ICJ is a mainstream institution with a high degree of credibility.

One hopes the UN General Assembly will also be persuaded to endorse the ICJ decision, reinforced by a call to grant citizenship to the Rohingya people.

Perhaps the government of the Gambia should take the lead. It is said that in bringing the Rohingya case to the ICJ, the Gambia was motivated largely by its conscience, specifically the pain and anguish leaders like Tambadou felt when the carnage in Rwanda occurred in the mid-1990s.

As demonstrated by the government of the Gambia, the nine Asean governments, who share a regional platform with Myanmar, should also for once act on the basis of their conscience.

They should set aside concerns such as trade and investments, big power politics and geopolitical pressures and focus solely upon the ordeal of a people facing extermination, and act accordingly.

It is not just Asean that should respond to the ICJ. What about China?

China, for geopolitical and geo-economic reasons, has become particularly close to the Myanmar government. Can the Chinese leadership rise above these considerations and instead emphasise the vital importance of our common humanity and our human dignity?

One can ask the same question of India and of Japan in their relations with the Myanmar government.

Of course, the Myanmar governments treatment of the Rohingya minority will only change for the better if the majority of the Myanmar people express strongly their disapproval of present policies.

They should urge their government to heed the ICJs order. This is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

It appears that the majority of the populace are attached to a Burman-Buddhist identity that does not really accommodate the non-Burman, non-Buddhist minorities a notion of identity which the ruling elite with the military at its core espouses. Antagonism towards the Rohingya is part of this notion of identity.

What this means is that if a substantial segment of Myanmar society is going to persuade their government to adhere to the ICJs order, it will be because of external pressure. Hence the importance of accelerating pressure through Asean, the big powers, the UN General Assembly and global public opinion.

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

See original here:

Enforcing the International Court of Justice order on Myanmar - Free Malaysia Today

NASSAU, BAHAMAS The inability of Bahamians to readily invest their money abroad has resulted in financial oppression, according to a well-known ophthalmologist.

Dr K Jonathan Rodgers underscored local investment options were unattractive during a lecture hosted by local think-tank The Nassau Institute on The End of Exchange Controls.

Rodgers noted that while there are advantages to having the Bahamian dollar as fixed currency 1.1 with the US dollar, a key disadvantage was what he referred to as financial oppression.

Rodgers said while having a fixed currency limits currency speculation Bahamians were also disadvantaged.

Due to the fact that Bahamians cant readily invest their money overseas, they are forced to invest it locally, he said on Wednesday night.

One of the most common investments locally is real estate. That is one of the reasons it costs so much and that combined with high transactions fees make it almost prohibitively expensive for the average persons to invest in real estate.

Rodgers continued: Its madness. As an alternative you can put it in a government bond but two years ago our sovereign debt got downgraded one level above junk status and they are not quite as safe as they used to be so you have to think twice about that. He also argued due to low interest rates on savings and services fees, Bahamians were losing money saving with commercial banks.

Financialoppressionforces you into these types of investments, he said.

On the possibility of the Bahamian dollar being devalued, Rodgers said: You always hear people saying, especially on the radio and talk shows.

That the Bahamian dollar will never devalue beach it is pegged to the US dollar. Absolute nonsense. Our currency is grossly overvalued. When you have an overvalued currency you tend to import more than you should and export less than you could. Government often has a falls sense of security with this one to one peg.

This why they dont have any problem borrowing in US dollars, he added.

Continued here:

Rodgers: Financial oppression as Bahamians unable to readily invest abroad - EyeWitness News

A respected woman social activist and political leader beaten and kicked in the stomach at a police station for recording a public protest. A human rights lawyer arbitrarily detained and given electric shocks by police officers. A journalist covering public demonstrations for a prominent national newspaper taken to a police station, subjected to obscene slurs by the police while witnessing a social activist being badly beaten-up.

Police stand by as an organised mob of masked goons attack students of a premier Left-leaning university in the dead of the night. Blanket institution of highly questionable criminal cases, indiscriminate arrests, caning and use of live ammunition with lethal effect on protestors. This is not the image of their country that Indians at home and abroad want to project to the world.

Nonetheless, many across the world are watching events unfold in the country with dismay. This Republic Day, Indias political leadership should be celebrating 71 years since the adoption of the constitution. Instead, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government is preoccupied with justifying flawed amendments to the Citizenship Act that exclude Muslims and have been described by the UN as fundamentally discriminatory. The constitutions promise of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity is being tested by injecting religion into the discourse around who gets to be an Indian citizen.

With attempts underway to crush largely peaceful nationwide mass mobilisations, the present appears to be reminiscent of the time when Indira Gandhi suspended certain constitutional rights by declaring a national Emergency from 1975-1977. Then as now, people from all walks of life and across the country came out to protest in large numbers in the tradition of satyagraha.

Could the repression now be worse than it was in 1975? Those who have resisted have been subjected to the full force of the law and more. Over 25 people have been killed in the protests. Unspecified numbers have been detained while many have been dubiously booked for rioting. They will face judicial harassment for extended periods of time as the wheels of justice grind slowly in India.

Random disruption of internet services to prevent public mobilisations and routine invocation of the regressive colonial era Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code to disallow five or more people from gathering in public places is tarnishing Indias global reputation as a stable democracy. The recently released Economist 2019 Democracy Index has noted a sharp decline in civil liberties in the country.

To be clear, the chaos and cruelty currently unleashed have been brewing for a while. Last December, prior to the ongoing nationwide protests and the ensuing crackdown, the CIVICUS Monitor, a research platform that measures the state of civic freedoms in every country, downgraded India to the second worst category, repressed, placing it on par with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Pakistan. Reasons for the downgrade included a months long clampdown on public gatherings and internet freedom in Jammu and Kashmir, muzzling of the media and gross intimidation of civil society activists and their organisations through selective invocation of security and criminal legislation to silence criticism.

Notably, mass mobilisations are an opportunity for ordinary people to get their voices heard and for the political leadership to course correct in between election cycles. Governments can take a reform-minded approach and make necessary changes in line with public demands or they can take an unbending undemocratic approach, spread disinformation and clampdown. The launch of the disingenuous hashtag called #IndiaSupportsCAA along with the marshalling of the countrys diplomats to justify the ruling partys position with foreign governments raises further concerns about the politicisation of national institutions.

Nonetheless, another course of action is available to the government: to back down and take corrective action. In Chile last year when massive public protests rocked the country against neoliberal economic policies, the government of President Sebastian Pinera agreed to hold a constitutional referendum. In Ecuador, President Lenin Morera reached a deal with indigenous leaders to cancel an austerity package following weeks of protests. In Lebanon, bowing to public dissatisfaction with official corruption, poor public services and economic mismanagement, Prime Minister Saad Hariri tendered his resignation. Even China, in the face of mass protests by residents of Hong Kong backtracked on a controversial extradition law albeit after strong-arm tactics failed to deter protestors.

Prime Minister Narendra Modis promise of Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas rings hollow in the face of an economic downturn and the ramping up of emotive politics of religion. But Indias youth are inspiring hope. Thousands of young people cutting across religious and caste divides are leading the way by becoming politically active on social media and on the streets, raising hopes that Indias democracy will ultimately emerge stronger.

Many are finding their voice in speaking out against the muzzling of protest against hate filled politics, rightly calling for a return to the values of democratic dissent and debate that define being Indian. Notably, women have come out in large numbers. Several are leading the protests. In expressing their indignation against attempts at institutional discrimination they are eroding patriarchy along the way.

The government of the day may have failed to honour Mahatma Gandhis legacy of communal harmony and peaceful resistance against oppression. However, this Republic Day conscientious Indians around the world are speaking out against the present injustices and are being the change they wish to see.

Lysa John is the secretary general of the global civil society alliance, CIVICUS. Mandeep Tiwana is chief programmes officer.

More here:

The Republic at 71: Faced With an Unbending Government, Indians Continue to Speak Out - The Wire