Category Archives: Government Oppression

About 900,000 Rohingya have fled from Myanmar to Bangladesh since August 2017, the result of a campaign of violence by the countrys security forces against the Muslim minority group. Even before that, the Rohingya faced decades of discrimination and persecution, including being denied basic citizenship rights.

Last year, a United Nations fact-finding mission documented consistent patterns of serious human rights violations by Myanmars military officials, including mass killings and gruesome sexual violence. The UN report concluded that members of Myanmars military officials should be investigated and prosecuted in an international criminal tribunal for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

In November, Gambia took action, bringing a case against Myanmar in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague for genocide, accusing the country of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention in a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing.

And on Thursday, the West African country got a victory, when the ICJ unanimously ordered Myanmar must protect the remaining Rohingya still within its borders, and required the country to report on its progress.

This is not a final verdict, not even close this is just a provisional decision in a yearslong case. But its the first time an international court has held Myanmar accountable for its campaign against the Rohingya.

Myanmar has denied it committed acts of genocide, though its own commission admitted some members of its security forces may have committed war crimes in its so-called counterterrorism campaign against the Rohingya.

Myanmars de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the former political prisoner who won the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to bring democracy to Myanmar, has conceded disproportionate force may have been used, but has framed it as part of a campaign to root out insurgents or terrorists. Aung San Suu Kyi has insisted that Myanmar can handle this internally, but she has been roundly criticized for for ignoring the plight of the Rohingya, if not being outright complicit in their oppression.

And it turns out, even with evidence of human rights atrocities, proving a country carried out genocide is a challenging legal task. To better understand this case, why Gambia is pursuing it, and what might happen next, Vox spoke to Michael Becker, an adjunct assistant professor at Trinity College Dublin and former legal officer at the International Court of Justice.

The conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.

So what exactly is the International Court of Justice?

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It hears disputes between states. It is different from any of the international courts that are focused on criminal prosecutions where you have a prosecutor bringing a case against a specific individual. No individuals appear as parties at the ICJ. Every case is between two states. In a way, its more analogous to a civil suit rather than a criminal case.

This particular lawsuit was bought by Gambia. And I wonder why?

Youre absolutely right to notice that because most cases are brought by two states where one is directly affected or injured in some way by what another state is doing. So where two states have a dispute over their boundary or, where one state uses force against another, and one state claims it was unlawful.

But there are certain types of obligations under international law that are considered to be enforceable by everyone, whether or not you are the party that has actually been injured or affected in some way.

And so the Genocide Convention, or not engaging in genocide, is considered one of those obligations. Its called an obligation erga omnes an obligation owed to everyone. And if its an obligation owed to everyone, any state can seek to enforce it if it feels its not being lived up to legally.

Thats why Gambia is legally able or has legal standing, as we would say to bring this case. Why Gambia in particular? Thats a little bit complicated.

How so?

Theres the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is an international organization made up of Muslim majority countries. Gambia is part of that.

As I understand it, this Organization for Islamic Cooperation was talking about one of their member-states bringing a case for quite a while. The interest there is that the Rohingya are a Muslim minority in a Buddhist state. Gambia ended up being the state that took up that challenge.

But that also has to do with the fact that Gambias minister of justice is a former war crimes prosecutor at the ad hoc international tribunals in the Hague. He has personal expertise and interest, and he was able to persuade his government to bring the case.

Thats why Gambia: a combination of this obligation erga omnes, which any party to the Genocide Convention can seek to enforce, combined with individuals who felt strongly about wanting to do it.

So this decision is not the final verdict in the case this is just the first step in a very long process. But my sense the court is saying theres evidence there might have been genocide, and Myanmar has to take steps to protect the population. Is that gist of what this decision represents?

Youre absolutely right that this is a long process. An ICJ case will typically take anywhere between three and five years, sometimes longer.

Thats obviously a long ways away, and one of the advantages of bringing a case at the International Court of Justice is they do have this power to issue what it calls provisional measures. In US legal language, its the equivalent of getting a preliminary injunction.

The court hasnt decided anything in todays decision about whether Myanmar has committed genocide. It hasnt decided anything about whether Myanmar has breached its obligations under the Genocide Convention.

What it has found is that for the Rohingya population that remains in Myanmar, the situation is serious enough that there is a real risk that acts constituting genocide might take place.

Thats the basis for issuing these measures, which are meant to protect the Rohingya in Myanmar from anything that might constitute genocide until the court can rule on the merits questions.

It also seems that, as part of this provisional ruling, there was some sort of obligation to preserve evidence? Can you explain what that means in reality?

Part of proving genocide can involve things like showing that entire villages have been burned down, or trying to figure out how many fatalities there have been, which might involve preserving a mass grave.

The idea here is that Myanmar should not be doing anything to further disturb sites, physical sites where some of the acts alleged by Gambia took place. Myanmar shouldnt be bulldozing over village sites and building on them. If there are mass graves, Myanmar shouldnt be doing anything to conceal those mass graves. It certainly would include if there are any relevant government documents. How Gambia is going to get ahold of those documents is quite a different thing.

This might be an inelegant metaphor, but this ICJ provisional ruling strikes me a bit as telling a murderer to stop killing and also preserve all evidence hes killed in the past. Are there any enforcement mechanisms? Whats the incentive for Myanmar to comply with this ruling?

A few things about that. The main orders imposed here are simply telling Myanmar to comply with obligations it already has. By telling Myanmar to take all measures to prevent genocide against the Rohingya from taking place, the court isnt creating any new obligations for Myanmar. This is what Myanmar is supposed to be doing anyway under the Genocide Convention.

But whats youre saying how can we really expect a bad actor to clean up his act because you tell them to? theres some truth to that.

Myanmar has made some important concessions, as it recently said gross human-rights abuses against the Rohingya may have taken place and some may have even risen to the level of war crimes. But Myanmar staunchly rejects the idea that any of this could be construed as an intent to destroy the Rohingya population, which is the requirement for genocide. That is difficult to prove. There is a high legal standard to prove genocide.

But the order, in a way, puts Myanmar on notice.

There already is a lot of scrutiny on Myanmar thanks to the work of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on Myanmar, which found that top Myanmar officials should be investigated for genocide and human rights atrocities against the Rohingya. That has already put a lot of attention on the situation. This ICJ decision adds to that. It means that anything Myanmars security forces are doing will be looked at through this additional lens.

The ICJ also imposed a reporting requirement on Myanmar, so Myanmar has to send a report to the court after four months and then every six months after while the case is pending to show what steps it has taken to prevent conduct that might constitute genocide.

Gambia may dispute what Myanmar claims it is doing. If the situation is grave enough, if new information comes to light about things are taking place on the ground in Myanmar that threaten the Rohingya, theres nothing to stop Gambia from going back to the ICJ.

Of course, you could say, Isnt that also more of the same? They werent that effective first time. What would make them effective the second time?

When it comes to international law, enforcement of international court judgments often comes down to the political will of states. This ruling could provide something for states to focus on in their own assessment of what the government of Myanmar is doing, and to help them decide to put further pressure on Myanmar to change its policies or to undertake new efforts in resolving the situation of the Rohingya.

But can an ICJ case like this do anything on the ground for the Rohingya in Myanmar?

There is definitely a risk in people expecting an ICJ case to be the solution to the entire problem.

The ICJ case can play an important role in responding to this particular situation. But it needs and this is true of many other situations too, that might involve international litigation strategies or international courts it has to be part of the broader political diplomatic strategy.

Since this is the top court of the United Nations, can the court make recommendations for the UN Security Council or other UN bodies to step in?

The ICJ not going to impose orders or direct anyone to do anything that isnt a party before it. So the ICJ would never even recommend action to the UN Security Council in a dispute between two states.

But can the UN do anything? Well, yes. The UN can always do something if theres political will. The remit of the UN Security Council is to deal with the maintenance of international peace and security or to respond to threats to international peace and security. At this point in history, that definition is extremely broad. So if the UN Security Council wanted to take action with regard to Myanmar or the Rohingya, they could.

Politically speaking, thats extremely unlikely. Particularly because of the relationship between China and Myanmar. As you know, China can obviously veto Security Council resolutions.

That makes sense the realities of politics often get in the way of political will.

One really interesting thing about the decision today was that it was unanimous, which is fairly unusual.

In the ICJ, if a state doesnt have a judge on the court from the country, its allowed to appoint a judge for that case. Normally, there are 15 sitting judges on the court, but in this case, there are 17, because Gambia appointed a judge and Myanmar appointed a judge.

Judges on the court are independent actors, but its not surprising when these appointed judges side with the country that appointed them. They dont always, but its certainly not surprising when they do.

But here we have a unanimous decision. Even the judge appointed by Myanmar found that the requirements for provisional measures were satisfied and that the situation posed a serious-enough risk of possible genocide to issue the measures.

It sounds then like the bar for this provisional decision is much lower than for the final ruling.

Its much lower because the provisional measures are meant to address or prevent the potential loss of human life while the case is still being decided. The court does have a much more relaxed standard about what evidence its going to credit.

The court cited the UN fact-finding mission report quite a lot in these provisional measures to establish theres a real risk to human life right now. But those fact-finding reports are going to get a lot more scrutiny in the next phase. The court will have to do a much more rigorous assessment of all of the evidence at that stage.

So its really quite important to say that there is a more relaxed or forgiving standard when it comes to provisional measures. You cant necessarily read that much into what the court has said here when it comes to how it might act on the merits.

So in terms of where we move from here, you mentioned that there will be a reporting requirement from Myanmar moving forward. Does Gambia get to investigate this case in the same way you would in a civil suit like, depose witnesses? Or does the ICJ do this? How does this all play out?

Thats a real tricky issue. The procedures for handling or gathering evidence at the end of the international level are not nearly as well developed as they are in most domestic legal systems.

Gambia requested which the court actually rejected a measure that would have required Myanmar to allow UN investigators into Myanmar. So far all of these UN fact-finding reports have been based on work that has been done outside of Myanmar, such as extensive interviewing of the Rohingya whove had to flee to Bangladesh and elsewhere. They havent gotten into Myanmar because Myanmar wont allow them in.

But since the ICJ rejected Gambias request, it leaves the fact-finding situation in a little bit of flux.

Gambia is relying on all of this evidence that the UN has gathered, that NGOs have gathered, that journalists have gathered. But Gambia can decide if it wants to ask the courts to authorize some kind of investigation of its own. I think thats unlikely, but they might want to press it.

But there isnt any equivalent to deposing witnesses or anything like that. And so this is something that the International Court of Justice and some other international courts have been criticized for for not having evidentiary practices that can really do justice to some of the claims that they have to decide.

I dont know what Gambia is going to do now. It may come down on them continuing to rely on the very solid fact-finding work the UN investigators have already done. Ive suggested that either the parties or the court itself might want to consider calling as witnesses the people involved in putting together the UN report. They should be subject to questioning and cross-examination at the ICJ.

If Gambia succeeds in making this difficult case, what would happen?

The standard for proving genocide is quite high, and very challenging to meet, even in the face of abundant evidence of mass atrocity. Thats not enough. That alone is not enough to meet the strict legal definition of genocide.

If Gambia succeeded, theres a separate question about what kind of relief it would be able to ask for. Thats all over the map. One focus might be on financial compensation.

There are bigger questions, too, about whether the court is in a position to compel Myanmar to change its citizenship laws, for example. The Rohingya have essentially been made stateless by being denied the right of citizenship, which has contributed to making their existence so precarious.

Those questions are years away, but they raise a lot of challenging and interesting legal questions about what type of relief might be available and how likely would it be that relief could ultimately be implemented.

Myanmar also established an Independent Commission of Enquiry (ICOE) to investigate atrocities against the Rohingya, and this week the commission said there was evidence of human-rights violation, even war crimes, but no genocide. How big a deal is that? Or was this an attempt to basically get out in front of this ICJ decision?

The commission of inquiry that Myanmar set up has been widely criticized because of the personnel involved. It looks very close to the government. It looks like it fails basic requirements to establish a baseline of independence and impartiality.

Its very tempting to just criticize the commission on those grounds and say its a complete whitewash. Im sympathetic to that, but Ive tried to make the argument that even if thats the case, its important to respond to its assertions and findings in a forensic way.

But, in a way, Myanmar also seems to be appealing to the international community to say, look, We are taking it seriously. So back off. Theres a strategic rationale for why they may be willing to admit to what are very serious transgressions. This is part of the overall narrative of Myanmars government, which is to say its dealing with an internal armed conflict. This is about counterterrorism; its not the governments plan to wipe out the Rohingya. This is about military or security forces engaged in counterterrorism getting out of hand.

I think they will try to use that to undermine the claim that theres genocidal intent. Its quite a cynical argument: We engaged in war crimes, so it cant possibly be genocide.

Sort of like mistakes were made.

This is the problem with the courts test. The ICJ has said if you are inferring genocidal intent, that has to be the only inference you can draw from the evidence.

If you can draw other inferences from the evidence such as the possibility of counterterrorism run amok that can defeat a genocide claim. Thats why genocide is so hard to prove.

Read more:

ICJ decision Q&A: Top UN court ordered Myanmar to protect the Rohingya - Vox.com

Chennai: Twenty-six-year-old Arivus small room on the fourth floor terrace of an apartment in suburban Chennai is as lively as his music. It is in this room that Arivu shot his now iconic rap song Sanda seivom, which effortlessly ripped the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and National Register of Citizens apart.

Ambedkar and Buddha are looking over him and an ektara (the instrument) standing tall. It was a gift from the Tata Institute for Social Sciences when I recently visited them, Arivu says. I intend to learn and even use it in my rap. A single stringed instrument, the ektara might not sit well with his fast-paced rap, but Arivu is used to challenges right from his childhood in Arakkonam.

I lived in an urban cheri, so to say. It was also a Muslim neighbourhood, and there was a beef slaughterhouse around. In todays India, perhaps a hugely controversial place. But life was a celebration there, he beams. His parents Kalainesan and Thenmozhi provided Arivu and his younger sister, now a qualified doctor, an intellectual atmosphere.

Appa was a professor in government college (he became one only when he was 45) and amma a government school teacher. Both of them were also working with Arivoli Iyakkam (knowledge of light movement a Left literacy movement). Theirs was an Arivoli marriage. We had no television at home, and we never got to hear the songs from movies. But there were Arivoli movement songs that shaped Arivus imagination and politics. Even as lullaby, appa or amma would sing only Arivoli songs, Arivu says, breaking into one.

Maadu meikka kannu unna naan anuppa maatenda,Paadupattu naan uzhaichhu pallikoodam serpen da.

(My dear, I would never send you to rear cattle,I would work hard and put you in a school.)

Conversations at home were generally about meetings that would happen near the Ambedkar statue, barely half a kilometre away. We had all sorts of meetings there Dalit cultural nights, leaders anniversaries and protests. I used to go with appa for everything, basically because there was no other form of entertainment.

Arivu performing. Photo: Special arrangement

And then there were books Arivoli Iyakkams monthly publications and Dalit Murasu, Kodangi etc. apart from his fathers research papers on Dalit leaders like M.C. Rajah and B. Parameswaran. Back then, I never realised how important they were but I read them anyway. To me, an incident [of some atrocity] in Dalit Murasu read like a short story. Today I realise its immense value and its huge influence on me.

Arivus parents always stressed on education but he thinks it was a mistake to have put him an expensive private school. I learnt nothing there, he rues. My parents had this peer pressure, but today I feel if they had saved all the money that they spent on educating us in a private school, we could have got a house of our own. I faced huge discrimination there, but until recently I never realised it was discrimination. There were teachers who abused me by my caste name, students who taunted me for being dark. I remember fighting with my mother for giving birth to me as dark person, and once since I cried so much, she took me to a hospital. The doctors laughed when they were told I am there because I am dark. Everything was painful but normal as a child.

Arivu learnt more from the music and books at home than at school. Soon enough, he wrote poems. I wouldnt call them poems, but my attempts, he smiles.

When he entered college Arivu studied engineering at a college in Coimbatore and later did an MBA he was ready with his first poetry collection. It was released by IAS officer Sivakami (a writer and vocal Dalit rights activist) and I managed to sell all 1,000 copies to my friends in college. The publication earned him a reputation in college he was seen as a writer and soon he was in the college band as a lyricist. But he was stopped from performing his own songs, because he had no formal training.

Also read: New Hindi Play Kusur Is a Provocative Duet Between Guilt and the Guilty

Since I entered college, I would practice singing at home in front of the mirror. When I was denied the opportunity, the pain was more acute. Because of my age, I was more aware. The song was given to someone much junior and I was told I could do a minute or two long performance in between. I decided I will use it, and put all my thoughts into it and sang in a thick voice. My friends said it sounded like rap that was the first time I was hearing of it.

After college, Arivu tried his hands at various things including the civil services, and he spent most of his time studying. But occasionally, when he got some money, he would go to Coimbatore to record a song that he had written. He had no idea, though, how to get them across on a public platform.

One day in 2017, he decided to take off from his studies in Chennai to go to Vellore, where director Pa Ranjith was coming for a meeting. He is a huge inspiration; I would listen to his interviews where he stressed on education for the oppressed. When I was tired of studying, I would listen to him and feel rejuvenated. I did not mind taking a day off to meet him.

In the train, he came across a person reading the familiar Iyothee Thass Pandithar. It turned out to be Udaya Ranjiths associate. Twenty days later, Udaya called Arivu to attend an audition for an independent music group put together by Ranjith, that would later be called Casteless Collective. Most of them were Gaana singers. I did a rap, a song on Ambedkar and read out a poem titled The grandsons of Ambedkar from Android age. I told them I want to use my art to pursue equality. Ranjith anna was impressed, and asked me to write lyrics for Casteless Collective.

Over the next ten days, Arivu was obsessed with the Casteless Collective writing song after song on reservations, Ambedkar and so on. The performance was a huge hit and people told him he would soon be offered a chance to write lyrics for Ranjiths movies.

That was never my idea, though. Ranjith anna always said we should use any form to speak about peoples issues. I believed it. One day when I was in his office, anna played Bob Marleys One Love to me and pointed out how his music was a relief to his people. That is when I realised art should also be celebratory. It was a defining moment in my life.

Arivu. Photo: Special arrangement

A day after Arivu performed a song on womens choices at documentary filmmaker Malini Jeevaratnams movie on LGBT+ issues, Arivu got a call from Ranjith to do some small work in Kaala, starring Rajinikanth. The song Nilam Engal Urimai (Land, our right) turned out, arguably, to be the most important protest song in a mainstream movie. The song, six minutes long, also features Jai Bhim slogans.

Uzhaikkum kaikalukke naadu naaduAdakkum kalam illaNamakkum veli illaVediththu poraadalamBayame illaNilame engal urimai.

(The country belongs to the hands that workThis is not the time for oppressionThere are no fences for usLet us break into protestThere is no fearLand, our right.)

AfterKaala, Arivu has been getting offers to write in movies, but he has been careful with his choices in mainstream cinema. Also, I would never quit independent music. That platform with all its limitations is dearer. Arivus Anti-Indian independent rap was a sensation, but such songs, surprisingly, never came in the way of his chances in mainstream cinema. In fact, directors have asked me to write similar songs, but tone it down a bit. Arivu has lost count but says he has written for some 20 films, including Suryas upcoming Soorarai Potru.

Of course, I write love songs too, but I maintain my ethics. I insist on gender equality in such songs, will never do body shaming or have phrases in praise of a skin colour. I celebrate love, but will never allow it to become an excuse for sexism.

Arivu has no great plans for his future, but there is one thing he knows he should do, either as research project or as music document work drawing parallels between oppari (the folk genre sung at funerals) and hip-hop. People say I write well, but I know I cannot hold a candle to the grandmothers singing oppari in my village. See this:

Naan anju maram valarthenAzhakaana thottam vachenEn thottam sezhichaalumEn thondai nanaiyalaiye.

(I planted five trees,And nurtured a beautiful gardenMy garden flourished,Yet my throat is parched.)

In these four lines, they talk about life. That is our folk art for you.

Arivu performing. Photo: Special arrangement

The cultural appropriation of hip-hop in Indian society is something that deeply bothers Arivu. In Africa, hip-hop was a form of protest. People used it communicate their pain and oppression. When you import it to the Indian context, it should have naturally spoken in an anti-caste voice, because caste is the most important issue in our country today. But instead, hip-hop is used for teasing women, to glorify men. You copy their caps, hoodies and jeans, but leave the politics behind. How can that be right?

His attempt to draw parallels between oppari and hip-hop is perhaps also a move to restore the art form to its originality. I firmly believe oppari is our form of hip-hop, he declares.

His association with Ranjith and Casteless Collective has helped him see his own family in a different light. I was that chill guy who had no respect for his grandfather. But now I realise his importance. My grandfather accepted oppression as a way of life. Even today, he wouldnt walk straight into a home of a dominant caste person. He would say he doesnt want to offend them. For my parents, love was the tool not anger. I realise the generational shift when I go in a car to a street where my grandfather couldnt have walked in slippers. And that makes me acutely aware of my own responsibility.

Also read: Does Increased Visibility of Trans People in Performing Arts Translate into Progress?

That, perhaps, explains why Arivu is not willing to let go of his independent platform, despite getting a good number of chances in mainstream cinema. He has his own channel now, Therukural (Street Voice), through which he intends to take art to the streets. There are people who say I should appear comfortable for those in cinema, so I can survive. But that is not my job. I want to be a tough artist speaking some tough truths, but please know this: I can still entertain.

Heres Arivu singing his anti-CAA song,

The full translation of the rap is produced below:

They call me Arivu,Im one of you,Equality is my dream,Ambedkar and Periyar lives forever,And my rap is the product of their rationality!

Democracy is the face of a free nation,Giving respect, should be the duty of the religion,Conferring equality, that should be the role of law,And foundations of our constitution too,Killing secularism is a foolish act,So, Its important to tell the truth.

Its the birth place of Thirukkural and the land of peace,We lived here as so many tribes,Then, some people came here on their horses,They subjugated us from then till now.They grabbed our lands, exploited our resources,Generation after generation, they refused to touch us

They segregated us into separate religion and castes,They getting rich by exploiting our work is whats history.We cannot forget that.

Who is minority here?Working class is the majority all around the world,But, the reality is that we stay divided!!

Those who came after is after our lives,While, those who are struggling for us are getting shot.Who should live here?Who should rule here?Who is the citizen?Who is Indian?Who is Tamizhan?Who are you to tell me what I am?Ones motherland is not in their birth.

Let us fight,Come forward Tamizha, let us fight,In the streets, let us fight,United as one, let us fight.If our rights are taken away, let us fight.

Kavitha Muralidharanis an independent journalist.

Go here to see the original:

Meet Arivu, Who Wants to Take Rap in India Back to Its Political Roots - The Wire

By Melanie Phillips, JNS

A profound and bitter battle between Israel and Poland has been brought to crisis point by the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, which is being commemorated by world leaders this week at Jerusalems Yad Vashem and next week at Auschwitz itself.

The roots of the row lay in remarks made last December by Russian President Vladimir Putin. He claimed that Poland helped start World War II, and accused it of being an anti-Semitic country that had welcomed Hitlers plan to liquidate Europes Jews.

A few days later, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki hit back. Without Stalins complicity in the partition of Poland, and without the natural resources that Stalin supplied to Hitler, the Nazi German crime machine would not have taken control of Europe, he said.

This dispute escalated when the Polish President, Andrzej Duda, wasnt invited to speak at the Fifth World Holocaust Forum at Yad Vashem on Jan. 23. It had previously been decided that, in addition to Germany, the only speakers would be from the United Kingdom, United States, Russia and France as the four nations that defeated Hitler.

Despite this explanation, Duda decided to boycott the Yad Vashem ceremony on the grounds that he wouldnt be able to respond should Putin use the event to repeat his accusations against Poland of anti-Semitism.

The row then escalated still further in salvos of mutual accusations between Russia and Poland, each accusing the other of facilitating or standing idly by Hitlers assault on Europe and the slaughter of the Jews.

The truth is that both sides are trying to sanitize their highly complex pasts. Both are using their undeniable suffering at the hands of the Nazi regime to absolve themselves of complicity in either Nazi aggression or the onslaught upon the Jews.

The Soviet Union may have made its infamous pact with Germany in 1939 merely as a defensive measure, as Putin has implied. And the Soviet Union was critical to the eventual defeat of Hitler. Nevertheless, that pact gave Hitler the confidence to provoke world war by invading Poland.

The Polish government believes that Putins main motive in provoking this row is to weaken Polish influence in the European Union. Warsaw strongly supports maintaining sanctions on Moscow for its annexation of Crimea and has also been fighting a planned Russian gas pipeline.

If Putin, however, was being cynical, Polands revisionism has been egregious. Both the Polish prime minister and the head of the Auschwitz museum have declared that the Yad Vashem ceremony shouldnt have been held at all, with the sole commemoration being the one held every year at Auschwitz.

It is extraordinarily offensive to claim that the State of Israel, which arose from the ashes of the Holocaust, should have no role in commemorating the liberation of the most infamous of the Nazi extermination camps.

The main reason behind this claim appears to be that one of the events organizers was the World Holocaust Forum Foundation. This was founded by Moscow-born philanthropist and Jewish activist Moshe Kantor, who is said to be close to Putin. So the Poles viewed the Jerusalem ceremony as a Russian provocation.

But it was also organized by Yad Vashem and the office of Israels President. So the Polish boycott was an insult to Yad Vashem and the State of Israel. Yet on BBC radio this week, the Polish prime minister doubled down and insisted that the Yad Vashem ceremony was disrespectful to Poland.

Such arrogance is of a piece with Polands appalling historical revisionism. True, its history is complex. The Poles were indeed badly victimized by the Nazis, forming the second-largest group murdered in the extermination camps.They also suffered greatly from Soviet oppression, both during Soviet occupation under the pact, as well as under Stalinist rule after the war.

Its also the case that more Christian Poles have been recognized by Yad Vashem as Righteous Among the Nations for risking their lives to aid Jews during the Nazi period than citizens of any other country in Europe.

But these heroic Poles were themselves targeted and killed by other Poles for trying to save the Jews. There were also Poles who helped the Germans hunt down Jews and kill them.

For what Poland goes to such lengths to deny is that the culture of the country has always been riddled with anti-Semitism, due in large measure to the primitive prejudices promulgated by the Catholic Church.

Before World War II, anti-Semitism became increasingly open in Poland with government authorities taking formal measures to exclude Jews from key sectors of public life.

Both during and after the war, there were Polish pogroms against Jews. In 1941, several hundred Jews in Jedwabne were burned alive by their Polish neighbors.

In Kielce in 1946,42 Jews were killed and more than 40 were wounded in a pogrom conducted by Polish soldiers, police officers and civilians.

Yet Poland furiously denies its historic culture of anti-Semitism. Last year, its governments attempt to prohibit rhetoric accusing Poland of complicity in Nazi crimes created a furious row with Israel.

An uneasy peace was brokered when the two countries agreed on a joint declaration stressing the involvement of the Polish resistance in helping Jews. This was condemned by Yad Vashem and other Jewish historians who claimed that this overstated the Poles rescue efforts and understated their anti-Jewish atrocities.

The current Auschwitz row has provoked claims that this Polish revisionism is being promulgated by populist nationalist politicians. In fact, it has a deeper cultural lineage.

For more than two decades, Poland has denied the centrality to the Holocaust of the Jewish genocide by claiming that the Nazis murdered the Jews in Poland because they were Poles. Denying the victimization of the Jews as Jews enables Poland to deny its own anti-Jewish past.

Ever since the country was liberated from Communist oppression, it has tried to construct a national identity around its status as a victim of both Nazism and the Soviet Union. But in trying to deny their countrys anti-Jewish past, Poles repeatedly indulge in anti-Semitism.

Both before and during World War II, attacks on Jews were fueled by the belief that the Jews were behind Soviet communism. This has developed into the now widespread accusation of Jewish-Bolshevism that makes use of Jewish texts to support obscene claims of Jewish responsibility for the Holocaust.

In an interview in Tablet, Elbieta Janicka, a Polish historian who focuses on Polish anti-Semitism, has spoken of how a conference on Polish Holocaust studies held in Paris last year was disrupted by a group of Poles who distributed anti-Jewish propaganda, harassed participants and subjected to them to crude anti-Semitic remarks, all under the noses of Polish state representatives.

The French minister of science sent an official protest note to the Polish minister of science. In return, she was advised to deal with French anti-Semitism. Now the conference organizers have prepared a lawsuit.

Last year, the Polish prime minister himself made a notorious comment that Jews were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Challenged about this on the BBC, he refused to retract his words and merely implied that he was referring to Jewish collaborators in what he agreed were terrible times.

This Auschwitz row is effectively holding the memory of the Jewish dead hostage to international politics. It tells us yet again that, despite such commemorations, too many still regardthe Jews as little more than a troublesome and even despised impediment to their own agendas.

Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for The Times of London, her personal and political memoir, Guardian Angel, has been published by Bombardier, which also published her first novel, The Legacy, in 2018. Her work can be found at:www.melaniephillips.com.

Go here to read the rest:

A Polish-Russian row over commemoration of the Holocaust - EJP - European Jewish Press

AI technology is a mirror of society and may exacerbate existing power imbalances.

Photo: Shutterstock

Share this article

As we enter a new decade, what has been termed a global AI race is starting to dictate the agenda of policymakers across the globe.

To boost competitiveness and national security capabilities, many national governments have released national AI strategies in which they pledge substantial investments into AI innovation. Supranational organizations are not lagging behind. Since 2018, the European Commission has been contributing 1.5 billion euros ($1.6 billion) to AI innovation via the Horizon 2020 framework.

While it is unclear how much corporations invest directly or indirectly into AI innovation (e.g., via R&D or M&A), global investment into AI startups has risen continually. In 2019, it was at $37 billion, compared to $1.3 billion in 2010.

But with big investments come big risks.

While governments and corporations are hedging their bets, they are turning a blind eye to the substantial challenges that this supersized AI hype brings for society. For example, there is mounting evidence that AI systems not only perpetuate but exacerbate inequalities.

Often, these inequalities occur along the well-known fault lines of race, gender, and social class, and their intersections. For example, algorithms that are used in the U.S. health care systems have been proven to be racially biased. A 2019 study showed that a risk-prediction tool that is widely deployed in the U.S. to help identify and target patients complex health needs privileges white patients.

The same risk score saw black patients to be significantly sicker than white patients, effectively denying the additional care they needed. Similarly, object detection systems, which are used in autonomous vehicles, have been proven to show higher error rates for pedestrians with darker skin tones.

In theory, this predictive inequity puts pedestrians with darker skin tones at a higher risk of being struck by an autonomous vehicle (though, it should be noted that most autonomous vehicles use more than one type of sensor).

We have also seen highly problematic uses of automated decision-making systems in the criminal justice system. For example, in 2016, the risk assessment algorithm COMPAS, used to inform fundamental decisions about a defendants freedom, was found to operate with racial bias, thereby privileging white defendants.

In a famous HR example, a companys hiring algorithm taught itself that characteristics of maleness (such as playing baseball) were predictors for a successful career within the company. This meant that CVs of women were sent to the bottom of the pile, even though they did not explicitly state the gender of the applicant.

Gender-based discrimination has also been proven to exist in the context of job advertising algorithms, not showing certain job or housing adds to women. Another example is the existence of gender bias in automated decisions about credit lines, putting women at a disadvantage despite a better credit score.

There is also proof of discrimination based on social class. For example, class-based discrimination has been shown to occur when government agencies use algorithms to automate decision-making in areas such as child welfare or unemployment payments, systematically putting poor people at a disadvantage by increasing their risk of losing custody of their children or losing their benefits.

Since 2018, new ideas around making machine learning and AI fair, ethical and transparent have captivated technologists and researchers alike (not least evidenced in the success of the ACM FAT* conference). The main idea behind these interventions is to mitigate the social impacts of AI by technological means. But there are big obstacles to this quest.

Making AI fair requires a sound definition of fairness, related to anti-discrimination law, and of bias that can be codified. But statistical bias is something entirely different from cultural and cognitive bias, and fairness in AI design will point us to bigger questions around the moral and legal foundations of fairness and to how data is classified and processed.

Similar issues arise in the context of ethical AI.

For example, ethics codices have been shown not to affect decision-making in software development, and the idea of a moral or ethical machine remains abstract and unfit for real-world contexts.

It remains questionable if there can even be a technological fix for a social problem. AI technology is a mirror of society and may exacerbate existing power imbalances. Issues of discrimination and oppression require policy action, not just attention from governments and companies alike.

AI systems are designed for scale. But that also means their adverse impacts scale for better and, often, for worse. Currently, regulators are not prepared for this scope. To date, the regulatory and legal environment of the (often global) development and deployment of AI technologies remains weak and patchy.

While the General Data Protection Regulation has brought some clarity with regard to data collection and processing (but notably not inferential analytics), it has created legal asymmetries between EU-based users and non-EU-based users using the same service.

There are ongoing efforts to establish rules for responsible AI, notably by the European Commission. Such frameworks spark important conversations about changing business practices in AI design, but they are still to be tested in practice, and above all, they remain unenforceable.

We see this void being filled by precedent lawsuits. The systemic and potentially devastating discrimination that can occur through AI systems may eventually lead to class action lawsuits, for example, in the context of government use of AI systems, or in the context of corporations using AI in hiring.

And this is not all. It is likely that more challenges, harms and risks will emerge in the context of AI and the climate crisis, misinformation, automated warfare, worker and citizen surveillance, mobility, city design and governance, and more.

In the meantime, the narrative that technology can fix society and will lead us into a prosperous Fourth Industrial Revolution has helped us to ignore the actual abilities and limits of AI. This is an illusion that poses a risk in that it hinders sustainable innovation.

AI technologies cannot easily be deployed into work processes and the organization of social life. Often, underpaid workers and individuals labor to integrate AI technologies, making up for technological shortcomings through human intervention (whether that is in front or behind the screen).

We must be mindful of the fact that AI technologies continue to be grounded in statistical analysis. This means that automated predictions are based on correlation, not causation, limiting what conclusions can be drawn from an inference.

While many firms generously invest in AI, the return on investment, especially for machine learning projects, is turning out to be slow. New interventions, such as algorithmic auditing, are also seeing a slow uptake with new specialist firms only fairly recently entering the market (such as ORCAA and ArthurAI).

Against that backdrop, both governments and corporations would do well in considering the social, economic and ecological opportunity costs of the AI hype: In 2020, innovation must look beyond AI to address the planets most urgent problems, ranging from inequality to the climate crisis.

View post:

Ethics Codes Are Not Enough to Curb the Danger of Bias in AI - BRINK

Imran Khan rode a populist wave to become Pakistans prime minister in 2018. Since then, his tenure has been marked by economic turmoil, violence, skirmishes with neighboring India, and rising Islamic extremism. On Jan. 22, he met with Foreign Policys editor in chief Jonathan Tepperman at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. The following conversation has been edited for brevity and syntax.

Jonathan Tepperman: How was your meeting with President Trump this morning?

Imran Khan: The No. 1 thing that is very important for the United States and for Pakistan at the moment is Afghanistan. The only other country, apart from Afghanistan, which wants peace after 40 years of conflict is Pakistan, because we get directly affected by what happens there. The tribal areas which border Afghanistan have been devastated since 9/11. And we feel that the only way we can rebuild those areas is if there is peace in Afghanistan and trade between the two countries. Of course, Afghanistan is also an economic corridor to Central Asia, so its very important that there is peace there.

Until recently, the U.S. believed that there was a military solution. I, for one, have always opposed this military solution. I always believed that the so-called war on terror was the wrong way to fight terrorism; I felt that it created more terrorism due to collateral damage. We were witness to that in our own country and in Pakistans tribal areas: the more drone attacks, the more people got killed, the more people joined the militants. I was opposed to this, and for that I was considered anti-American and pro-Taliban.

Now, the policy under President Trump is that there should be peace talks and a political settlement. So we are on the same page, and thats why Pakistan has, for the first time, a decent relationship with the United Statesbecause relationships are built on common objectives.

Previously, we had this awful situation where the U.S. expected Pakistan to help them win the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan should never have accepted this challenge, because we couldnt deliver. As a result, we were divided, we lost 70,000 people killed in the war on terror, and at the end, we were held responsible for the U.S. not succeeding. Now, our objectives are the same. The United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan want peace.

JP: The last time you met, President Trump suggested he might be willing to get involved in Kashmir. Youve called to internationalize the issue. India, of course, has always opposed it. Is there any chance its going to happen?

IK: I am a firm believer that military means are not a solution to ending conflicts. So from day one, I believed that the only way forward was to try to have a peace settlement. Because of my cricketing background, I probably am the one Pakistani who knows India better than anyone else and has more friendships in India than anyone. I felt that made me ideally placed to improve the relationship between the two countries, so after taking office I immediately reached out to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. I was amazed by the reaction I got, which was quite weird. The subcontinent hosts the greatest number of poor people in the world, and the best way to fight poverty is to have a trading relationship between the two countries rather than spending money on arms. This is what I said to the Indian prime minister. But I was met by brick wall. Then this suicide attack in Pulwama on the Indian side of Kashmir happened, and Indian soldiers got killed. I immediately told Modi that if you can give us any actionable intelligence [that Pakistanis were involved], we will act on it. But rather than do so, they bombed us.

After Mr. Modi won a second election in 2019, he unilaterally annexed Kashmira disputed territory between Pakistan and India, according to the U.N. From then on, things went from bad to worse.

Let me say one last word on whats happening in India, because I think its a disaster for the people, especially for the people of Kashmir, who for over five months now are literally in an open prison, kept there by 900,000 troops. Its a disaster for India, because India is a multicultural society and a secular society. That was the vision of Mahatma Gandhi and the first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.

JT: India and Pakistan almost went to war last year. How close to another major conflict are we? What can you and the rest of the world do to prevent it?

IK: Were not close to conflict right now, but its important that the United Nations act, that the U.S. act. The Indian election campaign, which Modi won hands down, was built on jingoism and hatred for Pakistan. So my worry is that things will get worse in India. There are protests in India against these two new citizenship laws [an amendment that fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslims from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, and a registry of citizens in Assam that requires people to prove their citizenship with paperwork]. To distract attention, they are bombing along the Line of Control. If things get worse, they might increase the bombing.

Thats why the U.S. and the United Nations must take steps. Why not send observers along the Line of Control?

JT: Trump has a very close relationship now with Prime Minister Modi. Were you worried by Howdy, Modi?

IK: Not by Howdy, Modi. Their relationship is understandable, because India is a huge market, and of course every country would like the benefits of this huge market. And thats fine. My concern is not about the U.S.-India relationship. My concern is the direction in which India is going.

The sequence of events bears striking resemblance to what happened in Nazi Germany. Between 1930 and 1934, Germany went from a liberal democracy to a fascist, totalitarian, racist state. If you look at what is happening in India under the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] in the last five years, look where its heading, youll see the danger. And youre talking about a huge country of 1.3 billion people that is nuclear-armed.

JT: So since were at the World Economic Forum, let me ask about the economy. Pakistans economy has crashed 13 times over the last 60 years and required an IMF bailout each time. Fitch, the credit rating agency, recently gave Pakistan a B rating, saying its economy is, constrained by structural weaknesses, reflected in weak development and governance indicators. The WEFs brand new social mobility index ranks Pakistan 79th, below Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and India. Pakistan is among the lowest investment rates in the world, and last year it imported twice as much as it exported. You came into office promising a new Pakistan. What kind of reforms are you making to break this cycle and fix the economy? And why should investors have any more confidence this time than in the past?

IK: Pakistan in the 1960s was one of the fastest-growing countries in Asia, industrializing faster than anyone else. It was a model which was copied by a lot of countries. My contention is that its not a lack of resources that make a country poor. My contention is that it is corruption. First, corruption destroys state institutions. The justice system, the accountability bureau, the tax collection system have to be destroyed for officials to make money.

Second, because you have to take ill-gotten money out of the country or else it will be spotted. So money laundering starts putting pressure on the currency. And when the currency devalues, it leads to inflation, more poverty, and then the money that should be spent on human development invariablyand I can tell you from our experiencegoes into mega projects that feature mega kickbacks.

What we are trying to do now is, No. 1, to strengthen state institutions. We have conducted a big accountability drive, which has never happened in Pakistan before. Second, we have tightened up the laws on money laundering.

Even more important, we have changed the direction of the country. We used to have these boom and bust cycles because we had a growth rate which was artificial, because it was led by imports. And we inherited the biggest current account deficit. Weve cut it down by 70 percent. Weve brought down our imports. We had to adjust our currency to make our exports more competitive with the other countries. And for the first time, exports, which were stagnant for five years, are showing signs of improvement. And our currency is stable. Our stock market is the highest in a year. And our investment in just two years has gone up 200 percent. Obviously, theres a lot of hard work remaining. But I think we are headed in the right direction.

JT: And how much can you do to reform when the military remains so powerful and retains such vast business interests?

IK: I can say that this is probably the first government that is totally supported by our military. Theres no issue between the civilian government and the military, and the reason is that I think there is a broader trust there. The reason why the previous clashes used to take place was that when the civilian government started making money, the military had these intelligence agencies which knew what was going on. So therefore, there was always a clashnot because the military was interfering in the government, but because the civilian leadership were vulnerable because the military knew the extent of their corruption, so they wanted to control the military. Now we have their complete support.

JT: Youve been very vocal about criticizing Indias treatment of its Muslims and the oppression of Muslims around the world, with one notable exception: China. Why have you been so quiet about the persecution of Chinas Muslims in Xinjiang and elsewhere?

IK: Well, two reasons. One main reason is that the scale of what is going on in Chinaand frankly, I dont know much about it, I just occasionally read about itis nothing compared to what is happening in Kashmir.

JT: With all due respect, were talking about some 1 million to 2 million people being detained in Xinjiang. Thats not nothing.

IK: But what is happening in Kashmir is 8 million people under siege for five months. Over the last 30 years, about 100,000 people have been killed in Kashmir. And all the top [Kashmiri] leadership is in jail. So its the scale of what is happening.

As far as the Uighurs, lookChina has helped us. China came to help our government when we were at the rock bottom. So we are really grateful to the Chinese government, and we decided that whatever issues we will have with China, we will deal with them privately. We will not go public.

JT: The U.S. and others have warned that China is setting up Pakistan for a debt trap, as Sri Lanka and others have fallen into. What are you doing to prevent that?

IK: My finance minister is sitting here. Can you please tell them exactly what is the component of Chinese debt?

Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh: Well, first of all, we have to recognize what China is doing in Pakistan. Economic projects. And the key component of that is building a port. And the idea is to promote exports to Africa

JT: But China has ended up owning the port it built in Sri Lanka.

AHS: No, thats not true. The port belongs to the people and government of Pakistan. Obviously, you need a port to operate, and the international experience shows that its better than government bureaucrats to have well-run private companies. So that is the spirit.

The other point I want to make is that this network of roads to the port will benefit Pakistani society. We are inviting foreign investment from every country, including the U.S. We are building this network of roads, ports, and electricity plants not meant exclusively for the Chinese.

JT: Are terrorist groups like the Haqqani network currently operating in Pakistan?

IK: Absolutely not. When I first became the prime minister, India told us that these groups are operating from within Pakistan. When I spoke to the prime minister, I said, You point out, where are these groups. When the Americans asked us about these groups, we said, You come and tell us where these safe havens are. I can proudly say that they are a legacy of the past.

JT: Freedom House this year ranked Pakistan as partly free, in part because of the treatment of journalists there, who report an increase of harassment and intimidation by the security forces in the last year. What are you going to do about it?

IK: I invite you to come to Pakistan. The criticism the prime minister has faced, the government has faced from the press has also included serious libel. Look at what the media has printed. I can honestly say that no democracy would allow this sort of thing. I spent a lot of time in England. I was in university there. Their libel laws are such that no one can get away with something like that. Imagine someone going on television there saying that, Ive just heard that the prime ministers wife has left him. You say that in England, and there are consequences. If anything, we need regulations on the media. Theres nothing better than criticism. Criticism is the difference between a democracy and dictatorship. But what my government has faced is propaganda. And we find ourselves defenseless, because we cant protect ourselves. They accused me of something illegal. For one year, I have been trying to get justice from the watchdog body. And the prime minister hasnt got justice. So this is all wrong. In the past, there might have been issues, but I honestly feel that the Pakistani media is more vibrant and free than any other media in the world.

Originally posted here:

Imran Khan on Trump, Modi, and Why He Won't Criticize China - Foreign Policy

India shut down the internet in the state of Assam on Thursday, after citizens took to the streets to protest a controversial new citizenship rule. Its the latest example of a worrying worldwide trend: cutting online access to control the people.

The news: On Wednesday, Indias government approved the Citizenship Amendment Bill, which creates a path for citizenship for minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (but not for the countrys Muslim minority). In the state of Assam, where residents have long been unhappy about immigration from nearby Bangladesh, protesters set fire to train stations. The government sent in troops and shut down the internet, according to CNN.

Whats the big deal? In an increasingly connected world, shutdowns are a way to stop protest and are considered by many to be one of the defining tools of government oppression in the modern age. In 2016, the United Nations condemned internet shutdowns as a violation of human rights and freedom of expression. Notably, countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and India had suggested amendments to this resolution.

Growing problem: Internet shutdowns are also becoming more common. According to the group Internet Shutdowns, which tracks shutdowns in India specifically, there were three when it started in 2012. This year there were 89, more than in any year except 2018, when there were 134. Worldwide, the numbers dont look much better. The digital rights group Access Now has tracked internet shutdowns since 2016. According to its 2018 report, the most recent one available, the numbers are on the rise: from 75 shutdowns in 2016 to 196 in 2018. India continues to lead the pack.

See the original post:

India has once again shut down the internet to control protesters - MIT Technology Review

A funny thing happened to the House on its way to impeachment. It got lost.

It happened a long time ago. Despite the unusual focus of impeachment on the role of Congress, it highlights just how irrelevant the national legislature has otherwise become.

In the congressional conflict with President Trump, its leaders stress that the House and Senate were placed in Article I of the Constitution for a reason. In a government with three co-equal branches, the legislative branch is really most important.

The House majority disputes Trumps objections to impeachment, reminding him that the Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment. This congressional power provides no role for the president.

In reality, among the three branches of government legislative, executive and judicial Congress may have the least power. Compared with the executive, it obviously comes in second.

Shedding oppression by the British king, the drafters of the Constitution sought to ensure control of the federal government would not be exercised by one person but by legislators representing the states and the people. Hence, Article I.

But they were overly optimistic. Three of the countrys greatest presidents would deal with challenges that increased their powers. Washington was empowered to create the federal executive. Lincoln led the country to save the Union. F.D. Roosevelt rallied the nation to reform the failing economy and win a world war.

Even without those events, central control of the military and foreign affairs in the worlds major power made a strong executive inevitable.

The country spread across a continent. At the same time, managing public affairs became more complex as government dealt with matters ranging from race relations to railroads. Congress increasingly delegated its powers to the president.

Gradually, the executive did more than carry out congressional decisions. Congress became dependent on it, granting it broad rulemaking powers.

In recent decades, Congress has also allowed the Supreme Court to make legislative decisions. Because the legislative body either passes unclear and conditional laws or doesnt pass them at all, the Court often fills the gap.

Take the abortion issue as an example. While federal law bans spending for abortions, it fails to define rights or limits, if any, for the procedure. In filling this gap, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade. The matter was settled, perhaps tentatively, by nine justices, not by the elected Congress.

Strict party allegiance and the resulting partisanship promote executive power. Parties in Congress back, almost blindly, presidents of their own party.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell wont allow votes on major bills unless he is assured of White House support. Ceding all power to the president, the Senate has given up the role of an independent legislature.

What about Maine? Gov. Paul LePage set the record for vetoes, even rejecting bills passed with huge majorities or even unanimously. After the Legislature received a LePage veto, Republicans would often reverse their previous support for the bill and sustain their governors position to kill it.

Public opinion rates Congress even less favorably than the president. Compared with the president, members of Congress, whose prime focus is gaining re-election, seem to take little action. In part, that appearance results from the media focus on the president, easier to cover than Congress.

During the unusual House exercise of its unique power of impeachment, the favorability rating of Congress has increased. While that rating gain may be heavily partisan, it recognizes a rare moment of congressional action. The people probably want more.

To recover power, Congress could pass simple and unconditional legislative directives, not leaving it to the executive branch to fill in the blanks. It should decide tough issues and not leave them to the courts. Both take hard work and resistance to special interests.

It could strip power from congressional leaders and recover it for members, who would be less straitjacketed by party discipline. After all, voters elect legislators, not political robots whose main task may be campaign fundraising.

Gordon L. Weil formerly wrote for the Washington Post and other newspapers, served on the U.S. Senate and EU staffs, headed Maine state agencies and was a Harpswell selectman.

Previous

Go here to read the rest:

Gordon Weil: Impeachment spotlights fading role of Congress - Press Herald

As I was wandering through the West Acres mall recently, I was reminded of the old expression: It's that time of year again. The time to overspend on Christmas presents, the time to overindulge on food and drink during our holiday gatherings, and also the time to enjoy catching up with old friends and distant relatives. Yes, it is a time of holiday cheer. Now, what could possibly dampen this feeling of joy and happiness that we experience during this time of year?

I could say the Bison losing in the FCS playoffs or minus 50 wind chill, but we can handle that. No, what really puts a sour taste in my eggnog these days is another issue we are dealing with. It is the time of year for presidential campaigns and the ongoing soap opera now taking place in Washington. You can't even watch the news, anymore, without being inundated with all this impeachment garbage. Some have argued that Donald Trump is primarily responsible for all the division going on right now in our country, but those who want to blame Trump are missing the big picture.

Politics is sometimes called the battle of ideas, and we should expect some disagreements along the way among honest people with good intentions. However, what's missing these days is common ground. There is a new civil war brewing in this country and the American people will be asked to choose in future elections between two philosophies.

RELATED

Do you think, as our Founding Fathers did, that rightsincluding your own property earned by your own laborcome from the inherent value of individual persons(not government) and must be protected from government? Or, do you reject that foundational American idea and instead think rights can be manufactured (and removed) by government for whatever it deems to be the greater good? No less than the American ideal is at stake.

But, some will say, it's that time of year. Can't we just stop all this arguing and fighting over Trump and have a little peace during this holiday season? Yes, of course. I would like to live in a country that allows everyone the freedom to worship their particular religious faith without fear of government oppression. Oh, wait! We already do. Freedom of religion is listed in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution of the United States. The left in the Democrat party, however, seem intent on destroying the inherent principles found within the Constitution, all while paying lip service to it.

Now, for Christians, this time of the year is referred to as the season of Advent. The word advent means "arrival." Christians understand that the only true peace on earth is achieved through the forgiveness of sins, hence the need for a Savior. That is why, during this holiday season, we have come to worship that Holy Child of God, who was born in Bethlehem, and anxiously await his second coming. With one voice, we all declare: Maranatha.

Come Lord Jesus. Come quickly. Come soon!

Continue reading here:

Letter: It's that time of the year again - INFORUM

TURKEYS opposition Peoples Democratic Party (HDP) released a shocking report this week detailing the scale of oppression it has faced, with more than 15,000 members detained since 2015.

The partys Reports on Violations of Rights for 2019 showed that 1,674 HDP members and officials were detained during operations this year and 200 of them jailed.

The party released its findings to mark international Human Rights Week, with a statement warning: Turkey is nearing 2020 as a country where human rights are disregarded.

At least 15,530 people have been detained, of whom 6,000 have been jailed, since the HDP won its first seat in the Turkish parliament in 2015.

Operations against the HDP have intensified this year, with authoritarian President Recep Tayyip Erdogan angry at being humiliated in municipal elections.

His handpicked candidate in the controversially rerun Istanbul mayoral election, former prime minister Binali Yildirim, lost by more than 800,000 votes to oppositioncandidate Ekrem Imamoglu of the Kemalist Republican Peoples Party (CHP).

Mr Erdogans ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) also lost control of the capital Ankara and failed to win in Turkeys third-largest city Izmir, a CHP stronghold.

The state responded by moving against the HDP, removing elected mayors in Diyarbakir, Mardin and Van provinces on August 19. They were replaced by government-appointed trustees.

Since then, the report states, 17 HDP co-mayors have been jailed as the government has taken control of more than 28 HDP-run municipalities.

Former party co-chairs Figen Yuksekdag and Selahattin Demirtas are being held hostage as political prisoners having been held in jail since the state detained HDP MPs in a series of raids in November 2016.

One of the heaviest sentences was handed down to HDP MP for Diyarbakir Idris Baluken, who received 16 years and eight months in prison on trumped-up terrorism charges.

The HDP was established in 2012, bringing together a broad coalition of Turkish and Kurdish left organisations, including the Peace and Democracy Party, Green-Left and the Socialist Party of the Oppressed.

It was born out of the Peoples Democracy Congress, whose participants also included labour movement organisations such as the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey.

From its inception, the party attempted to build a bridge to overcome the Turkish-Kurdish divide.

It tested its electoral programme for the first time in the 2014 local elections and presidential election, when its candidate Mr Demirtas polled nearly 10 per cent of the national vote.

But it has faced increased pressure from the Turkish state, including the killing of supporters, as the government tries to silence opposition.

See the original post:

Turkey's HDP reports increased violations in Human Rights Week - Morning Star Online

On the midnight hour of August 14, 1947, India set out on its post-colonial journey to build a sovereign secular democratic republic, sanctified in an elaborately-written Constitution, which became the pride of the nation.

Over seven decades later, when the republic should have mellowed with age and the wisdom that came with it, on the midnight of December 9, India took a step backward, seriously undermining the secular character of the republic. Parliament passed a Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) offering citizenship to refugees of all faiths, except Muslims, fleeing oppression in neighbouring countries.

Why has this happened? The RSS, the ruling BJPs ideological elder, provides some answers through the action plan it lays down. According to a report in one leading business daily, quoting a person in the know, the RSS wants committed centrally-appointed facilitators and the rollout of the pan-Indian National Register of Citizens (NRC) monitored by the Centre on a day-to-day basis in non-BJP ruled States, particularly West Bengal, to prevent undercounting of Hindu immigrants because the State government wants to prove a point.

This is strange, because the State government has given enough indications recently that it is courting the Hindu vote as much as the Muslim vote (recall the move to allow Chhat Puja to be celebrated at Kolkatas Rabindra Sarobar, despite the Pollution Control Boards orders).

An RSS functionary also referred to Hindus in Bangladesh being unable to come to India because of the Nehru-Liaquat Ali pact, despite the fact that millions have done so post-Partition. By all accounts, those who have remained in Bangladesh are at peace and their proportion in the population has gone up in recent years, according to what Sushma Swaraj told Parliament. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has around herself a number of trusted Hindu civil servants in important positions.

A declared aim of the RSS is to confer citizenship rights to the Namashudras, who are referred to by the functionary as our Dalit brothers and are described as suffering in West Bengal. The treatment of Dalits and Muslims in Bengal needs to be put in historical perspective. Large numbers of lower caste Hindus in Bengal converted to Islam not forcefully, but at their own volition to escape the caste systems oppression and in response to the love and affection extended by Sufi teachers.

Large numbers of mazaars (graves) of Sufi peers dot the two Bengals, which people of all faiths come to visit. Out of consideration for the sentiments of the Hindu visitors, many of these places of pilgrimage do not serve beef in the free meals they offer. Ideology apart, the decision to promptly bring in the CAB resulted from one unforeseen consequence of the final version of the Assam NRC. Many of the 1.9 million whose names were excluded were non-Muslims. To overcome this, the BJP government decided to amend the Citizenship Act first to confer citizenship to non-Muslim immigrants who have come in till 2014, and then roll out the NRC across the country. This will help include all those wrongly left out of the Assam NRC.

The RSS wants the procedure for the pan-Indian NRC to be simple. This is a hard-learnt lesson from the fiasco in Assam, which has resulted in an electoral setback for the BJP. It recently lost all the three West Bengal by-elections. In one constituency , Kaliagunj, the Rajbangshis, an ethnic Hindu community who constituted a majority of the electorate, voted for the Trinamool as they were aggrieved by many of their brethren in Assam being left out of the NRC.

The procedure for the pan-Indian NRC rollout is likely to be fraught. Poor people who may have migrated from one part of the country to another will often not have the necessary paperwork to prove their citizenship. Even when they do, there is every chance that petty officialdom from across the counter will harass them. The whole exercise can become a source of corruption, where the poor paying for it.

The final contradiction is that there is an agitation by students across the North-East against the CAB, when they should be among its foremost proponents. The Bill and the NRC go hand in hand. But when the final result of the Assam NRC went haywire and was disowned by the students, as many non-Muslims found themselves missing from it, the Central government has tried to rectify the situation by amending the Citizenship Act.

The revised Citizenship Act offers citizenship to all non-Muslims who came in till 2014, while the NRC a product of the Assam Accord allowed citizenship to all those who came in up to 1971. This extension will confer citizenship to a whole section of Bengali Hindus, which will affect the linguistic and ethnic character of the State. So the Assam students who have played a role in both the NRC and the CAB, have disowned both!

The writer is a senior journalist

Read more:

Citizenship Bill: A blow to the secular republic - BusinessLine