Category Archives: Government Oppression

I dont own to knowing much, but if there is one truth Ive gleaned from nine years of post-secondary academics (engineering, public policy, and law if were being annoying about it): if someones making something sound complicated, its either because they dont understand it much themselves, or theyre incentivized for you to lose interest.

So when reading the comments on the long-awaited gender equity pay legislation for the province, I became endlessly curious about which of the former it was: a general lack of fundamental understanding by these politicians, or an objective to push off the public interest?

P.E.I. recently announced their pay transparency legislation to take effect June 1. While it is not technically their pay equity legislation (as that came into effect, like many other provinces in, like, oh, you know, 1988) it does do a lot with what appears to be a little and adds to the existing framework.

The legislation basically mirrors that of other provinces: requiring companies to post salaries when publicly advertising jobs and prohibiting companies from asking potential job seekers past salary information or salary expectations. It also prohibits employers from lashing out against employees who ask for pay raises or initiate discussions around pay. Thats it. Its like a few additional lines of text in the, what, entire Employment Standards Act of the province.

What it does, though, is really interesting it puts the onus back on employers to publicize pay information and reduces the ability of companies to exploit workers who may accept less (statistically, women and other minority workers) for a similar job that would normally pay more.

Like nearly all policies meant to benefit equity groups, pay equity/pay transparency legislation actually benefits everyone (at least all workers), as most studies show that pay secrecy is how you lose out on making the most you could in your position. If companies are forced to publicize job salaries on postings, everyone is able to keep a healthy understanding of their specific value to a company and have the data to demand more without penalization.

You may think, "Shucks, if we want to see how that turns out, well have to wait a little while and see if its effective." Except we dont need to because were the fourth (potentially third, at the rate B.C. is going) last province to enact such legislation. P.E.I.s new policies are virtually the same as Ontarios existing legislation.

For those of you with actual interest, Im sure the thought of reading legislation is sleep-inducing (which is a healthy response). However, as someone who has read more legislation and statutes than the average person, I can promise you it is all quite largely the same. And why wouldnt it be? Effective policy is often proven policy. Transferable legislation helps with interprovincial matters.

The MHAs are talking about this legislation like were playing some game of complex Operation and if we use the wrong word in line 2 sub (b), the buzzer goes off and our chance at gender equity is over. But thats bananas and a complete either misunderstanding of their jobs or an attempt to distract us from how unnervingly straightforward these policies are, especially with the legislation in use and well understood in almost every other province.

This is far from me saying the legislation thats out there right now is perfect but you cant adjust what doesnt exist. You misserve everyone by not having any protection while we collectively work through optimizations.

Every statute goes through multiple edits once in place some multiple times a year over often decades of modifications. Such is the cycle of life (and, of course, politics).

To suggest that the MHAs of this province cant even agree to add some words encoding a right of workers to know how much money they might make on a job or protecting them with a process if theyre being exploited is incredibly concerning. (Almost as concerning as the completely-serious comment made by elected officials that there are still pay gaps in provinces that have pay equity legislation, somehow conveniently leaving out that most of the provinces without pay equity legislation have the highest pay gap. Come on.)

I think my naivety shows through in my ability to remain impressed at those constantly weaving a fable about making hoverboards only to have somehow pulled back the curtain to (ta-da!) a reinvented wheel.

Again.

To suggest that the MHAs of this province cant even agree to add some words encoding a right of workers to know how much money they might make on a job or protecting them with a process if theyre being exploited is incredibly concerning.

I know at a critical academic even level, public policy must be adapted to the environment to which it is applied. True, evidence-driven public policy takes proven fundamentals from other jurisdictions and engages with local stakeholders, runs variables, and edits what is necessary to ensure positive outcomes are demonstrated when applied in the intended environment.

However, were not talking about something that is jurisdiction driven were merely demanding people get paid the same for the same work. Were asking that be put in writing so those who find themselves in situations where that isnt the case have the power to protect themselves, their co-workers, their families, from that inequity. That there are mechanisms for them to make that fight possible.

The only way we can accept that as a jurisdiction-based issue is if we suggest that women or other equity groups in Newfoundland and Labrador matter less than those in P.E.I. or Ontario or, comparatively, if the companies in N.L. matter more than its people. This is certainly not a complex issue I'm not even sure how the government has managed to frame it as a divisive one.

I will leave us with this thought: starting in 1991, the N.L. government fought its people tooth and nail, bringing a case all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, to avoid paying its people (a subdivision of unionized women) equal pay, in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They asked the Supreme Court to state these women deserved to be paid inequitably from others in their fields. The N.L. governments argument was they just simply couldnt pay them; the province would go bankrupt. The government asked that these women of our province be denied a right under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court allowed it (years later the back pay was issued).

That was over 30 years ago. We have seen economic busts since then, sure, but we have also seen economic booms. We did not stop to repay those women by ensuring none would suffer quietly the same fate as those who suffered it so publicly.

We did not stop and check-in to ensure an ongoing safekeeping of our neighbours during those times of wellbeing. Is this the history we desire to leave of our province?

This question of do we deserve basic pay equity and pay transparency legislation is so soundly an all of us question. The only them who lose are the corporations who are profiting off the gap between wages, and the silence on discussing wage earnings publicly.

It is shameful that there is a narrative being encouraged that others those who are asking merely for a safeguard against oppression or abuse of power. It is embarrassing that we are dragging our feet against protecting each other. But the one thing I can confidently say is it is not complicated: so it merely, apparently, interferes with some other interests.

Which begs the question whose interest are these elected officials more concerned about than the people of this province?

Lori Wareham is from Mount Pearl, N.L. She has a background in graduate-level gender-based public policy research with an interest in diversity and equity in employment law. She was recently called to the bar in Nova Scotia and is now commencing a clerkship in Ottawa.

Link:

COMMENTARY: Not recreating the wheel no reason pay equity legislation hasn't moved forward in NL - Saltwire

When Elon Musk embarks to his colony on Mars, there will be an Indian waiting for him with Chai, there is an Indian in every nook and corner of the world phrases of this nature are familiar to all of us. These invoke the globality of Indians. According to 2011 census data, 45.6 crore Indians are categorised as migrants of which 1 percent account for international migration.

International celebrities of Indian descent are constantly brought up and quickly claimed by us Made in India. Kamala Harris and Sundar Pichai are used by parents to set standards and remind their children of the smartness and efficiency inherent in Indians. An addition of a foreign degree, in particular from an Ivy League Institution, to the Indian Merit, is the secret recipe to success.

In 2017, 5.86 lakh Indian students studied abroad spread across 86 countries, with 66 percent of the target population concentrated in three countries: the U.S, Canada, and Australia (MEA 2017). In 2019, I secured a scholarship to study gender in the U.K and Spain for a year each. Unsurprisingly, there were already Indian student groups in place.

At one of the parties hosted by an Indian acquaintance, I was introduced to a group of jolly good Indians. I was discussing my scholarship terms and the inability to afford the posh student accommodations. A postgraduate student was gobsmacked and blurted out, There are scholarships for Indians? No one told me. I was in turn shocked that he did not even think of the possibility.

He followed it up with You are so lucky!. Thank you? Confused, I moved on to another group of students who were discussing Rajnikanth movies and I pitched in saying how much I loved Kaala, to which a film student replied, It is a nice movie and he is a great director but his problem is he is obsessed with those people. I perfectly understood which people he was referring to my people, the Dalits and Bahujans. My Indianness was lacking, an avarna Indian, I did not belong. Born in India, marked abroad, lucky Indian.

Democracy is hanging by a loose thread. Globally, overt racism and full-fledged xenophobia are resting comfortably on the rhetoric of merit. In popular conception, a meritocratic society rewards efficiency and talent which stands isolated from social and cultural baggage. It is based on the holy trinity of personal responsibility, natural talent, and hard work. How did the idea of merit develop?

Get premium content, exclusive benefits and help us remain independent, free and accessible.

BECOME AN FII MEMBER

Choose Your Plan!

The concept of meritocracy is entangled and derived from the moral and ethical virtues closely related to religious faith. Sandel argues, Biblical theology teaches that natural events happen for a reasonthis outlook is the origin of meritocratic thinking. This hides the whole social process of making merit by proclaiming that merit is inherent and divinely ordained, which can be enhanced through hard work. Therefore, merit exists outside the purview of class, race, and gender.

Similarly, the making of merit in India is hidden within Hinduism. Pattaril pottan ella is a frequently used Malayalam phrase which translates to No idiot can be found among the Pattar (Brahmins). Ajantha Subramaniam in her book The Caste of Merit, elaborates on the co-option of middle-classness and merit by the Tamil-Brahmins of the nation.

So why do we have a problem with reservations? In India, the narrative of meritocracy is propagated through strong anti-reservation sentiments which is also a reflection of a nationwide decrease in the standard of living and increasing inequality. We need someone to blame. We are all working hard but earning less. This is a global capitalist phenomenon that needs sacrificial lambs. It is the migrants; the Muslims; the Dalits; the colored; and thus, never the system

She explains, Their characterisation as a middle-class fighting with only one weapon in their arsenal- education- disregards their long multifaceted history of Tamil Brahmin capital encompassing ritual authority, landownership, and state employment. In common logic, merit relies on the individuals ability to make something of their own. Merit is conceived as the residual power of a person after filtering their economic capital, the core intrinsic talent.

However, merit cannot exist in a vacuum and needs to be made. Merit encompasses the value added by social, economic, and cultural forms of capital. The access to best schools, parents education, ability to fund coaching classes, ability to self-fund tuition fees, and affordability to apply to multiple universities are requisite to acquire the basic conditions which could then make merit.

I am a good (merit adjacent) marginalised caste student, as I qualify to meet the eligibility of basic merit. In other words, I am lucky. I am lucky that I was not a first-generation Dalit, I am lucky that I studied in an English medium school, and I am lucky I got a scholarship. I am lucky to slip in with a meritorious crowd who can choose their university without looking at the funding options. The sad part is that I am indeed lucky because I am the exception, not the rule.

While merit is competing with luck, affirmative action stands opposite merit. It is a reservation seat as opposed to a merit seat. It is a reservation student as opposed to a meritorious student. Slowly, merit became synonymous with Savarna, while meritless minorities steal their education and jobs.

I was researching for this article and stumbled upon a Quora discussion. The question was, How do people from India see forward caste students going abroad to study since they are denied opportunities due to reservation?. It completely escapes the Savarna consciousness that it is a privilege to study abroad and not a disadvantage. One of the answers suggests a solution: the government funding backward caste students to go study abroad and retaining all general category students in Indian institutions. What a marvelous idea! Dalit and Bahujan students can escape the casteism in the Indian academia, while all the premier Indian institutions could be retained as hundred percent Savarna safe-havens.

All the premier Indian institutions including AIIMS and IITs have been repeatedly criticised for the overt shaming and stigmatising of Dalit students. Aside from alarming statistics of caste discrimination in Indian universities, I know a number of Dalit students who have been harassed and mentally abused to the point of suicide and discontinuation of education.

Also read: Public Universities: The Site For An Emerging Ambedkarite Struggle

In addition, professors who teach Bourdieu and preach equality, reject the supervision of Dalit/Bahujan (and reservation) students citing a lack of the academic flair or their incapability to articulate complex research ideas. I wonder what is more complex than caste. The few professors who agree to supervise lucky marginalised caste students like myself are keen to dilute the Dalitness of the topics to maintain the relevance. They encourage the use of words such as class, group differentials, community, etc., to replace the word caste. It makes the research more topical and adds academic vigour (read-merit).

Dalit topics are marginal, not sophiticated or mainstream. A few weeks earlier, one of my friends who is preparing for central government exams was blatantly discouraged by a parent. If you dont have reservation in this nation, there is no hope for you, cried a disgruntled Savarna. Let us check some facts.

Based on article 16(4) of the Constitution, reservation is provided to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) at the rate of 25 percent, 7.5 percent and 27 percent (49.5 percent), respectively, in case of direct recruitment on all-India basis by open competition. According to the 2011 Census, the population of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes is 19.7 per cent, 8.5 percent and 41.1 percent, respectively, amounting to a total of 69.3 percent, indicating an under-representation by 20 percent points. From the other side, for the Savarnas who consist of 30.8 percent of the total population, 51.5 percent seats are reserved.

According to 2016 data, the representation of OBC is 19.28 percent which is less than the prescribed percentage. Furthermore, in 2019, the Union Council of Ministers approved a 10 percent reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for economically weaker sections within the forward castes.

the visibility of Indians abroad is a result of multiple waves of migration. With the Indians, caste was also exported globally. The western world got acquainted with the Indians, their culture, their food, their literature, and their rituals. Caste is presented to the outside world merely as a religious habit, family ancestry, or a community. It is never expressed as an ONGOING system of oppression. Suraj Yengde, a rising Dalit scholar, mentions in his book Caste Matters, the explicit casteism he faced at the worlds best universities and how he found solace with the African American community

Dalit scholars and activists have pointed out the inappropriateness of reservation as a poverty alleviation measure. Reservation was conceptualised to work as a long-term measure to enable social mobility of the historically oppressed. It is ill-suited to solve the relatively recent loss of economic capital of forward castes. A quick comparison of the income eligibility for reservation benefits will help to fish out the double standard within government policies.

Any OBC candidate with a family income of 8 lakhs and above will be considered as a member of the creamy layer within the group and is denied reservation benefits. The income eligibility of EWS candidates is also 8 lakhs. In short, an OBC with 8 lakhs as family income is considered the elite, while a general category candidate is considered economically weak.

So why do we have a problem with reservations? In India, the narrative of meritocracy is propagated through strong anti-reservation sentiments which is also a reflection of a nationwide decrease in the standard of living and increasing inequality. We need someone to blame. We are all working hard but earning less. This is a global capitalist phenomenon that needs sacrificial lambs. It is the migrants; the Muslims; the Dalits; the colored; and thus, never the system.

The pervasiveness of casteism within Indian academia, along with the power of a foreign degree to establish the merit, worked as a push factor for me to apply for a Ph.D abroad. In my search for scholarships, I found the National Overseas Scholarship, a unique scheme to financially support SC/ST students to study abroad.

But it comes at a huge cost. The scheme guideline specifies topics/courses concerning Indian Culture/heritage/History/Social studies on India based research topic shall not be covered under NOS. This effectively clips the wings of aspiring social scientists. In India, science has always been considered respectable and meritorious, the masculine stream which requires intelligence, logic, and objectivity. While social science is treated as an educational after-thought; a less serious school is made of stories.

Globally, the bias-free tag of science and the binary of objectivity-subjectivity have been discarded by welcoming reflexivity. However, countries that stray away from democracy always seem to hold on to this obsolete division and are hostile to the social sciences and humanities. Science is essential. Social science disrupts. It comments on the current socio-political situation. It is inconvenient.

The government does not support aspiring social scientists and is aggressively cutting UGC funding for the social sciences and the humanities. This leaves us with the option of seeking international funding, which depends on the internal committees of the respective universities.

As mentioned above, the visibility of Indians abroad is a result of multiple waves of migration. With the Indians, caste was also exported globally. The western world got acquainted with the Indians, their culture, their food, their literature, and their rituals. Caste is presented to the outside world merely as a religious habit, family ancestry, or community. It is never expressed as an ongoing system of oppression. Suraj Yengde, a rising Dalit scholar, mentions in his book Caste Matters, the explicit casteism he faced at the worlds best universities and how he found solace with the African American community.

Meritocracy teaches us that if you deserve it, the system will reward you. If you have merit in you, you prosper. This means if you do not achieve what you hope for, you are not meritorious. But you know you have worked hard, so why are you not rewarded? All through my life, I had to reaffirm myself, that I can, that I deserve this. I had to observe patterns, read books, and cross-check data to finally accept merit is made, merit is reproduced, and merit is social

Recently, Dalit activist, Thenmozhi Soundarajans scheduled talk on caste discrimination at Google as part of their Employees Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) program was cancelled. They cited that the talk could be seen as discrimination against privileged castes. Oh, Sundar Pichai! While Kamala Harris invoked her Indian roots and Hindu-phobia, she conveniently left out her Tamil Brahmin identity, lest someone smell privilege. Savarnas hold positions of great power and represent India.

Diversity and inclusivity scholarships within admission procedures in Ivy League and high-ranked universities usually club all minorities together. For example, BAME is a diversity policy of the U.K. Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnics (BAME) policy reserves a small percentage of seats for the minorities, while reserving the rest for home students.

This policy received huge backlash for clubbing vastly diverse groups together and the term is now rarely used. However, the essence remains the same. Due to the limited availability of seats, the scholarships are allotted to the under-represented minorities. Indians are well-represented in the global academia. But are all Indians the same?

The representation of Dalit students is minimal in high-ranked international universities and statistics related to the same are unavailable. This is another hurdle marginalised caste scholars have to face in addition to the lack of social networks which could support them on internal committees. However, we do have a group of rising Dalit scholars, who research above and beyond binaries. We need our turn. The modernity and continued reproduction of caste need to be emphasised.

The chaos we witness all around, the hustle, unemployment, the struggle to fill the gap in the CV, and our degrading mental health exhaust all of us. It is hard to empathise, reflect on history and mourn daily injustices. It is easy to deflect. It is a highly competitive world, and no one wants to accord their success to privilege.

Meritocracy teaches us that if you deserve it, the system will reward you. If you have merit in you, you prosper. This means if you do not achieve what you hope for, you are not meritorious. But you know you have worked hard, so why are you not rewarded? All through my life, I had to reaffirm myself, that I can, that I deserve this. I had to observe patterns, read books, and cross-check data to finally accept merit is made, merit is reproduced, and merit is social.

The rise of meritocracy is directly linked to the withdrawal of welfare schemes. It is here, that the neo-liberal system tells us look over there- reservation; migrants; meritless handouts. It is a scheme of politics where all individuals lose to a broken system. This is the global case of meritocracy. Merit camouflages rising inequality. Let us unmask meritocracy and demand a decent life for all.

Also read: The Argument Of Meritocracy Is Inherently Flawed. It Is Time We Put It To Rest

Uthara Geetha is an independent researcher. She is an Erasmus Mundus Scholar of Gender Studies from University of York (UK) and University of Oviedo (Spain). She also holds a masters degree in Applied Economics from Centre for development. Her main research area is on the intersection of caste, class and gender. She may be found onInstagram

Featured Image Source: cjp.org.in

Visit link:

Merit Is Made, Reproduced, Social: Investigating The Soundness of Meritocracy - Feminism In India

TODAY MARKS a crucial moment in Britains refugee policy.

If the courts strike down Priti Patels plan to deport black and brown refugees seekers to an offshore camp in Rwanda that will be a victory against inhumanity.

Even Tory MPs are calling the governments policy ugly yet this has come after Home Office sources have suggested the Home Secretary wants wave machines to push back dinghies carrying terrified men, women and children in the channel.

Patel even flirted with the idea of prosecuting the RNLI if they rescue drowning refugees in the channel.

If the court challenge to the Rwanda plan succeeds it will not only torpedo the governments shocking scheme, but also deliver a heavy blow to the heartless idea factory that is the Home Office.

But more than that, it will put back on the agenda the one humane solution that people are calling for to establish safe routes for asylum seekers to come to Britain and make their case.

The review into the Windrush scandal, led by Wendy Williams, called for humanity to be at the heart of Britains immigration policy.

Clearly Patels plan to deport asylum seekers before hearing their claims, and refusing to let them back into the UK even if they win their claims, fails on that score.

The Home Secretary claimed that refugees who win their asylum claims to settle in Britain will instead only have the right to start a new life in Rwanda a country with a heavily-criticised record of human rights abuses and political oppression.

The Rwanda plan has also been compared to people trafficking, with Karen Attiah, writing in the Washington Times that the trafficking of vulnerable people to and from Africa and its former territories overseas has been something of a historical pastime for Britain.

The fact that ministers have clarified no Ukrainians will be sent to Rwanda feeds suspicions that this is a detention centre for people from the Global South.

The policy has the stench of racism about it, as it suggests the real aim is simply to keep black and brown people out.

It is disappointing that some mainstream media outlets, such as the BBC, carried the government line that the Rwanda plan is about tackling illegal asylum seekers which is diametrically opposed to the internationally-accepted idea that the act of seeking asylum is not illegal.

The British governments attempt to redefine economic immigrants as applying to all single males should be roundly rejected. There is no evidence to support the governments view.

Immigration minister Tom Pursglove told BBC Radio 4s Today programme that the government wont discuss details to avoid giving succour to traffickers yet MPs need details in order to scrutinise and hold ministers to account.

Government figures show 61% of people who arrive in boats have their asylum claims accepted even in a Home Office accused of harbouring a culture of disbelief towards refugees stories.

The United Nations estimate that 70-80% of all asylum seekers in Britain have a good claim as they fled nations where violent political oppression is real.

Even the Council of Europe, whose governments preside over various levels of hostile environments, oppose the British plan. The CoE Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovi, said it runs the risk of seriously undermining the global system of international protection.

Human rights lawyers say the concept of deporting people before they have made a claim and refusing to let them back if successful falls foul of the principle of fairness that the government says they want the system to uphold.

Rwanda has a lower life expectancy 12 years below that of Britain (69 to 81), and has a population density of almost double (525 people per square KM, compared to 281 in Britain). If any nation has reason to say its full it is Rwanda.

Britain has previously accepted the claims of at least 4 asylum seekers from Rwanda, which is accused by Human Rights Watch of enforced disappearances and suspicious deaths of government opponents.

The arguments for scrapping this pernicious and inhumane policy are clear. It is now up to the court.

Lester Holloway is Editor of The Voice

See original here:

Why the Rwanda policy must be defeated - The Voice Online

The rule of law has deteriorated in Nicaragua. Over the last three years, human rights abuses and the deaths of hundreds of protesters have revealed the repressive nature of the Ortega regime. Indeed, while the country is ostensibly a democracy, Nicaraguas ambassador to the Organization of American States hasreferred toits government as a dictatorship. Nicaragua has historically faced many setbacks in its democratization process. The oppressive actions of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo (Ortegas wife) have shown Nicaraguans that their government has no commitment to freedom and democracy. If change occurs, Nicaraguans will have to confront the dictatorial husband-and-wife team that has taken over their institutions and civil society.

Historical Context

After fighting to obtain its independence from Spain in the mid-19th century, Nicaragua struggled against repeated USinterventions. In 1934, this led to the rise of the infamous Somoza regime, which ruled Nicaragua for the next thirty-three years. Suffering from high levels of corruption and political repression, Nicaraguan society formed a united front against Somozas oppressive regime after the assassination of journalist Pedro Joaquin Chamorro in 1978.

The subsequent revolution, led by the Marxist-inspired Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1979 at the cost of more than thirty thousand lives. The FSLN subsequently appointed Daniel Ortega to lead the country. In 1984, this choice was democratically legitimized by the Nicaraguan people through a free and fair election. However, the revolutions success did not end Nicaraguas problems. Throughout the 1980s, the United Statescovertly backedthe right-wing Contras in a bloody civil war against the FLSN government. The successful transfer of power to Violeta Chamorro after the 1990 election (as well as the end of the Contra war) led to hopes of a peaceful and democratic Nicaragua. There were improvements in the postwar era. The country developed an independent legislative system, depoliticized its security forces, and strengthened its civil society. However, after Ortega regained the presidency in 2007, heproceeded to erodethese democratic institutions.

Process of Democratic Backsliding

Until 2016, Ortegas administration economicallybenefited most Nicaraguans. Venezuelan President Chvez largely financed Nicaraguas government through Venezuelas oil revenues. President Ortega andhis inner circleallocated some of these oil funds to social policies benefiting the poor population (especially those who had pledged allegiance to the FSLN). The improved economic situation for Nicaraguans undoubtedly helped Ortega win reelection in 2011 and 2016. However, support for the Sandinistas began to wane during Ortegas 2016 mandate as Venezuelan funds gradually dried up. This raises the question: how did Ortega win reelection in 2021 despite his dwindling popularity? The answer lies in the erosion of Nicaraguas democratic institutions and Ortegas willingness to resort to authoritarianism to stay in power.

The former revolutionary first undermined democratic checks and balances byco-opting institutions. Indeed, Ortega appointed loyal figures or members of his inner circle to key political roles in the FLSN to manage the opposition. Not only did he nominate his wife, Rosario Murillo, as his vice-president in the 2016 election, but he also appointed Sandinista party loyalists in theAttorney Generals office. Institutional checks on presidential power have been further undermined as Ortega stacked the Electoral Council with his supporters, effectively allowing him tobar oppositionpolitical parties. Ortega also appointed his godfather,Raphael Solis, as head of the Supreme Court.

The weakening of social institutions also makes it difficult to argue that the 2021 elections were fully democratic. The press and opposition have been actively harassed and intimidated since 2018. Furthermore, many NGOs have been shut down by the government, preventing them from fulfilling the vital role of organizing citizens around issues. In 2018, Nicaraguas Congress removed nine NGOs from legalregistration.Ahead of the 2021 elections, the regime went even further, using laws to establish its authority over civil society and the media. The first controversial law to be passed was theforeign agentslaw. This law requires Nicaraguans working for foreign organizations to register as foreign agents. Those designated foreign agents cannot run for office and arebarredfrom intervening in issues, activities or matters of internal or external politics. The second controversial law to pass in October 2020 was acyber crimes lawthat facilitates human rights violations through its vague and ambiguous wording. Under this law, authorities can criminally sentence anyone disseminating information they deem to be fake.

The Turn to Dictatorship

Today, Nicaragua is not a democracy. The 2021 elections were not free and fair as government actions, including the imprisonment of opposition party candidates, removed all credible competitionfrom the presidential election. The countrys democracy has long been eroding, but its fall into authoritarianism came after the 2018 protests repression led to human rights violations, with 350 peoplelosing their lives. Ironically, the oppressive regime of Ortega (a former revolutionary) has become reminiscent of the tyranny of Somoza. Under Ortega, opponents are jailed. Private universities holding as the last centres of resistance are being shut down or stripped of their ability to operateindependently. Students are also hunted, imprisoned, and tortured by the government. The Catholic clergy that provided the root for the Sandinista revolutions success is now beingattackedby Ortegas followers because it opposes the repressive methods of the president. The presence of armed motorcycle paramilitary groups (allegedly brought in by the government) only worsens the terror that reigns during the demonstrations.

A positive message out of this authoritarian resurgence and attacks on the freedom of its citizens may be that democracy in Nicaragua remains in peoples hearts and cries. For nearly four years, Nicaraguans have been rising against the grip of the repressive regime. Students keep finding new ways to make their voices count as the government crushes democratic channels. As the country is now consideredNot Freeby Freedom House, exiles form the broad resistance base. More than 100,000 Nicaraguans have gone into exile to escape oppression. Among them, activists continue to fight for accountability. The human rightsdefence groupCollective of Human Rights Defenders: Nicaragua, Never Again, based in Costa Rica, documents the injustices and abuses of the Ortega regime and works to raise victims voices. While the picture is bleak, Nicaraguans continue to fight against the Ortega regime, and their repeated cries have reached the international community. On the 7th of March 2022, the UN High Commissioner for Human RightsaskedOrtega for a credible, fair and transparent electoral process as municipal elections are scheduled for the end of the year. Nicaraguans fight for democracy and justice has become increasingly international, and its efforts do not appear to be slowing anytime soon.

Featured image: Justice & Democracy for Nicaragua protesters mobilized in Britain against opposition to the autocratic rule of Ortega, by Alisdare Hickson. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Edited by Jonah Kidd

See more here:

The Everlasting Fight for Democracy in Nicaragua - The McGill International Review

An apparent lack of clear policies and procedures caused an hour-long display of citizen disappointment and anger at the Lake Wales City Commission meeting Tuesday night following a decision by Mayor Jack Hilligoss to remove a generic resolution recognizing Pride Month from the meeting agenda.

Proclamations are commonly used to recognize the accomplishments of community groups and individuals, or special observances and are normally a public relations tool for the city.

The proclamation offered by Lakeland-based Polk Pride required no vote or signature and has been presented at June city commission meetings since 2018. The text cites the fact that "Lake Wales, Florida, is part of a global community in which people of diverse cultures, races, creeds, genders, and sexual identities must work together toward peace and understanding..."

Hilligoss' refusal to include the document in the official agenda touched upon a hot-button issue and led to a succession of speakers who criticized Hilligoss for removing the proclamation. Citing continuing intolerance and discrimination directed at members of the LGBTQ+ community, many of the speakers, some emotional or even tearful, urged the city to continue its policy of acceptance of all.

Resident Mandy Cilliers shared a story of having been raised in apartheid South Africa, where she was not permitted to socialize with Blacks, and discrimination and intolerance were government-sanctioned. "I grew up with oppression, and oppression leads to hate," she said. "Children who grow up with hate, teach hate."

Bok Tower Gardens President David Price also urged tolerance and inclusivity, citing the fact that the gardens have always been accepting of all since their founding in 1929, and he expected nothing less from the city.

David Jones, a long-time employee of Lake Wales Hospital, told of his former co-worker Amanda Alvear, who was among the scores murdered in an act of mass violence at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. She was 25 years old, he said.

Bob Nickell called for tolerance, pointing out that "America has become more tolerant" and that many religious denominations now allow gay men and lesbians to become ministers.

"You don't have to send this hateful message," said resident Cheryl Millett, who said that she had long-before come to accept herself for who she is, but worried about the young people of Lake Wales who struggle to accept themselves, and the message that is being sent by "going back" on the tradition of acceptance and tolerance. Issuing the proclamation would be "no skin off anyone's nose."

Others spoke of the damage done by hate, and the senseless assaults and deaths that have occurred because hate is propagated instead of teaching acceptance and tolerance.

Local resident Heather Mankowski used her allotted time to read the document in full as adopted by the city commission of Davenport, thereby accomplishing the original intent of the proclamation before a larger audience..

In a conversation with LakeWalesNews.net City Attorney Chuck Galloway cited text in city administrative code which states that "Any person may have an item placed on the agenda by submitting a request to the city clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the meeting." For the past two or more years the commission has been conducting weekly agenda review meetings prior to that hour, making the current language obsolete. "There's not a current policy" to cover the removal of the item, "but that's being worked on," Galloway said.

According to City Clerk Jennifer Nanek, proclamations are not included in workshop agendas or discussions because they are not voted upon by the commission. Nanek said that in past years the proclamation has been read by Deputy Mayor Robin Gibson because former mayor Gene Fultz refused to do.

The proclamation language says it is issued "in honor of freedom from prejudice and bias in any form, and in recognition and praise of those members of our community who constantly fight the battle for equal treatment for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, race, color, creed, ethnic origin or religion." The full text is published below.

During the meeting Hilligoss attempted to deflect criticism by stating that he had never seen the proclamation. Galloway cited that as adequate reason to have it removed.

"In the past proclamations came over Gene's (Fultz) desk. He (Hilligoss) did not see it before it was published," which gave him the right to have it removed. "There's not anything written down which says that specifically," Galloway added, but "there will be something coming forward to address this issue so it doesn't recur."

Nanek said she had mentioned the Pride proclamation to Hilligoss prior to the beginning of the Wednesday agenda workshop and asked whether he would prefer to have Gibson present it, and he replied that he would "think about it." She was instructed to remove the item on Saturday morning.

At the conclusion of the meeting commissioners discussed the need for a policy clarifying when and who has the authority to add or remove proclamations on the agenda.

Originally posted here:

City Earns Black Eye With Fumbled Proclamation - Lake Wales News

Dozens of scholars have accused the UN human rights chief of having ignored or contradicted academic findings on abuses in Xinjiang with her statements on the region.

In an open letter published this week, 39 academics from across Europe, the US and Australia called on Michelle Bachelet to release a long-awaited UN report on human rights abuses in China.

The letter, published online, included some academics with whom Bachelet had consulted prior to her visit to Xinjiang. The letters signatories expressed gratitude for this, but said they were deeply disturbed by her official statement, delivered at a press conference in Guangzhou at the end of her six-day tour.

They said her statement ignored and even contradicted the academic findings that our colleagues, including two signatories to this letter, provided.

It is rare that an academic field arrives at the level of consensus that specialists in the study of Xinjiang have reached, the letter said. While we disagree on some questions of why Beijing is enacting its atrocities in Xinjiang, we are unanimous in our understanding of what it is that the Chinese state is doing on the ground.

Xinjiang is the site of a years-long crackdown by Chinese authorities on Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities, with sweeping hardline policies of religious, cultural, linguistic and physical oppression.

An estimated one million people have been incarcerated in a vast network of detention and reeducation camps, which Beijing terms vocational education and training centres. Document leaks have revealed countless others have been arrested or jailed for alleged crimes including studying scripture, growing a beard, or travelling overseas, and that authorities have established shoot to kill policies in response to attempted escapes.

Rights organisations and several governments have labelled the campaign a genocide or crime against humanity. Beijing denies all allegations of mistreatment and says its policies are to counter terrorism and religious extremism.

At the end of her visit Bachelet said she had urged the Chinese government to review its counter-terrorism policies in Xinjiang and appealed for information about missing Uyghurs. She was quickly criticised by some rights groups for giving few details or condemnation of China while readily giving long unrelated statements about US issues in response to questions from Chinese state media.

The academics letter is among growing criticism of Bachelet for not speaking out more forcefully against Chinese abuses after her visit, as well as a continued failure to release the UN report, which is believed to have been completed in late 2021. On Wednesday dozens of rights groups, predominately national and local chapters of organisations associated with Uyghur and Tibetan campaigns, demanded her resignation.

The 230 organisations accused Bachelet of having whitewashed the Chinese governments human rights atrocities and having legitimised Beijings attempt to cover up its crimes by using the Chinese governments false counter-terrorism framing.

The failed visit by the high commissioner has not only worsened the human rights crisis of those living under the Chinese governments rule, but also severely compromised the integrity of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in promoting and protecting human rights globally, the statement said.

They also decried that she had repeatedly referred to the detention camps in Xinjiang by the Chinese governments preferred term: vocational education and training centres.

The signatories said Bachelet had been entirely silent on the human rights crisis enveloping Tibet during her four years in office, and had grossly underplayed the crackdown in Hong Kong.

It also called for the urgent release of the UN report.

The repeated, open-ended, and unexplained delays call into serious question the credibility of her office to fulfil its mandate, the statement said.

Go here to see the original:

Fury at UN human rights chief over whitewash of Uyghur repression - The Guardian

Thirty-one-year-old Ghofran Warasnah was shot dead by the Israeli occupation forces located at the entrance of Al-Arroub Palestinian refugee camp near Hebron. Ghofran was a Palestinian journalist who was heading to work. According to reports paramedics were barred from reaching her for 20 minutes and the ambulance carrying her dead body was attacked by Israeli forces.

This brings to mind the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh.

Of course, this kind of extra-judicial killing is the norm in the West Bank, this year alone 50 Palestinians have been killed, including 15 children. In most cases Israeli occupation soldiers claim that the victims were assailants armed with knives who had to be shot to protect the occupation forces. No evidence is ever provided for their claims.

Unlike others, Israel kills suspects then seeks to legitimise the murder.

OPINION: Racist Israeli flag march raises concerns about threat to status quo in occupied Jerusalem

How are Israelis able to play the role of the victim? They are able to manipulate facts and escape the consequences of their actions. Basic facts which are not "disputed" by anyone except by the illegal Israeli occupation forces, such as that Al-Aqsa Mosque has been a Muslim holy site for the last 1,400 years. This fact is recognised by all concerned international organisations and laws.

Unfortunately, most of those who acknowledge this do not act accordingly, save some empty statements that denounce Israel's actions especially those related to human rights violations. They act with indifference towards Israeli violations and aggression, to the extent that they practically forgot their commitments and obligations towards the tenets of the UN and perceive and deal with Palestinians who are resisting a brutal colonial occupation in Jerusalem as vagabonds and trouble makers, not as freedom fighters and martyrs. This approach makes them complicit in the atrocities being committed.

This contradiction was evident when Israeli fanatics marched through the Old City of Jerusalem hoisting Israeli flags, abusing and cursing Islam's Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Palestinians, then broke into Al-Aqsa Mosque and practiced their prayers inside this Muslim holy site under the protection of Israeli occupation police, while the real owners of the mosque were beaten with batons and accused of disturbing the peace.

These crimes are legalised by the Israeli judiciary, who gave Jews the right to intrude into Al-Aqsa, protected by Israeli police who watch over them when they were reciting their prayers, justified by Western media which always claims that Muslim holy sites are disputed places, governed by the Israeli government.

So, does the world really believe that Israel is an occupation state? Theoretically speaking yes. In practice, however, this same world has not done anything tangible over the last 55 years to deter Israel or punish it. On the contrary, economic relations continued and helped strengthen the occupation's clout. All the European countries, America and most of Latin American, Asian, African and even some Arab countries have diplomatic relations with Israel. During the Trump era, the United States the most powerful country on Earth even relocated its embassy to occupied Jerusalem in contravention of international law. Turning the UN resolution on the matter into rhetoric.

Inaction and neutrality in the face of aggression is a sign of ethical bankruptcy. The world has long crossed this line to a more inferior one; the stage of covering, justifying and aiding the Israeli aggression on the Palestinian people. This same world who has been giving the occupation a green light for the past 55 years, condemning the Palestinian victims as they try to defend themselves.

What we see on the ground proves beyond no doubt that the world only believes in the language of nuclear war heads, aircraft carries, nuclear submarines, jet fighters and supersonic missiles and not in justice for the oppressed and those whose rights have been ripped from them.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

See original here:

Why does the world allow Israel to continue its oppression of Palestinians? - Middle East Monitor

This is an edition of Up for Debate, a newsletter by Conor Friedersdorf. On Wednesdays, he rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. On Mondays, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Last week, noting Russias invasion of Ukraine, Chinas treatment of Uyghur Muslims, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, and the hunger crises forecast in poorer countries, I asked, What responsibility, if any, do the United States or individual Americans have to help innocents around the world?

Chris argues that America will help if we know whats good for us and act in our selfish interest:

Advocates for more global engagement and aid, critics of the benefits of more global engagement and aid, and foam-at-the-mouth advocates of reheated Pat Buchanan isolationism all seem to accept the unstated premise that providing aid to the rest of the world would be a continuation of some fantastical Rich Uncle Pennybags version of U.S. history. If we help Ukraine more or less, it will be a measure of more or less charity and goodwill on the part of a benevolent or stingy America. Or a measure of our gullibility in throwing the taxes of hardworking Americans down the sinkhole of a corrupt government.

But this is not why the U.S. worked for so many decades to maintain global democracy, stability, or prosperity, any more than it was why the Roman empire worked to maintain a Pax Romana. Our moral responsibility to help the less fortunate is a valid philosophical debate, but the U.S. interest in keeping Ukraine independent, Hong Kong and Taiwan free, Uyghurs out of apartheid, and Africans from starving isnt primarily moral.

Yes, being a global underwriter, grant writer, and policeman has come with huge price tags, some poor decisions, and lost lives. And the benefits havent been enjoyed equally.

But for decades the U.S. was the primary beneficiary in the long run. Free democratic societies are less likely to attack each other and start wars. A global rules-based system creates trust between parties that allows for global trade. Our consumers can buy things from more places, our businesses can sell things to more customers. Our dollar is the reserve currency specifically because the U.S. is assumed to be the safest place to flee in times of financial troubleso the dollar actually got stronger when our own financial sector crashed the global economy in 2008, even as other currencies took a hit.

Our opinion carries outsize international weight because so many global strategies for finance and defense are dependent on American banks, companies, or backing, and so many nations are dependent on American aid or remittances from immigrants to America. Its not that our success creates a moral mandate to help. Its that our success is predicated on a transaction: well help most if everyone agrees to a global arrangement in which everyone can benefit but from which America benefits most of all.

The question we should be asking is: Are you willing to accept fewer goods, more expensive goods, more wars, a less valuable dollar, less global innovation, less safe international travel, and vastly diminished influence at the international bargaining table, if in exchange you dont have to feel bad about Ukraine, or be pissed off that theyre getting $40bn when youve still got that used Chevy? We dont get to walk away from our global responsibilities and keep the global leadership or the benefits weve enjoyed any more than you can walk away from your mortgage and keep your house. When you stop holding up your end of the deal, they throw you out. And right now, theres a couple people really, really hoping that well be evicted so they can move in.

Stefan urges multilateralism:

There is an internationally recognized Responsibility to Protect such innocents. However, this is clearly a GLOBAL responsibility if it is any responsibility at all. It is not, and should not be, up to the US alone. To be sure, it is doubtful that we can ever bring 100% of the worlds nations on board for any effort on behalf of the victims of even the most clear-cut case of malevolence against our fellow human beings. However, to suggest that it must either be 100% of the world or else just us is a false dichotomy. The truth is that it is indeed possible, and necessary, to gather as many nations as possible in support of any effort to assist those innocents who need our helpa coalition of the willing, if you can accept what some would consider to be an unfortunate and tainted phrase. We need to do our part to help, and given our size and global prominence, our part is usually going to be a leadership role. However, it cannot be ALL up to us.

Read: The potential of a hot war between the U.S. and Russia

MBI is similarly skeptical of unilateral American power:

The question as framed is somewhat perverse. The issues identified, such as the oppression of Uyghur Muslims, the subjugation of the people of Hong Kong and potentially Taiwan, and Russias murderous invasion of Ukraine are all of the highest geopolitical and strategic interest to the United States. From other parts of the world, the question raised may include the oppression of Muslims in India, the daily atrocities committed against the Palestinians in Israel or the numerous human rights abuses committed by dozens of autocrats spread around the world, some of whom are even supported by the United States.

That America thinks that it has a right to intervene to help innocents around the world is borne out of the belief in its own exceptionalism, which hypocritically allows it to select which countries to intervene in and ultimately save. The question that much of the rest of the world may ask is what moral right does America have to do this, or more precisely, what moral basis does America have to select the issues that it deems fit for its intervention? That American exceptionalism has justified the utter destruction of entire countries and societies on flimsy or non-existent pretexts or grounds does not help matters.

American exceptionalism is in reality an immoral means to pursue American national interests around the world and is entirely divorced from humanitarian considerations of helping innocents. If my assessment and analysis is correct then America does not have any right to help innocents around the world because the endeavor is entirely insincere, as we have seen in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Would America submit itself to the decision of an international body or institution that can claim some moral authority to determine in which situations to intervene? Of course not, as the body would not seek to advance American national interests and would also negate the idea of American exceptionalism. What is required is an end to American unilateralism, exceptionalism, selectiveness and the pursuance of an objective and impartial means to determine what situations are deserving of American intervention to help innocents, regardless of national interest considerations. That would, of course, be an imaginary world.

To play devils advocate:, If the U.S. is to spend wealth its people earned, or to fight with lives volunteered by its citizens, shouldnt Americans decide when and how to spend or to fight?

Guillermo takes a somewhat rosier view of Americans motivation:

To assume responsibility is a personal decision usually related to your intimate search for meaning. If a sufficiently large number of persons share a view of the meaning of responsibility, this becomes the view of a nation. More Americans than not see compassion as a good character trait and try to assist the innocents of the world. This in turn has consistently shaped government worldviews regarding the need for charitable work and merciful ministries. The world continues to be a difficult place to live because Homo sapiens is still a species prone to ego-centered violent passions. But in spite of it all, compassionate feelings and merciful actions continue to save us from extinction.

Recent headlines are bringing Cliff down:

Lets review what the past month of American life has brought us: a massacre of 19 children, a nationwide baby formula shortage, a racially motivated mass-murder in a grocery store, and three women shot by some lunatic in a salon for no reason other than the fact that they were of East Asian descent. I could go on, but you get the picture. Add to that a surge in Covid cases, permanent political dysfunction, an affordable housing crisis, and record inflation. The real question becomes whether America can help anybody, because it obviously cant help itself. Until we get our act together, we should ask not what we should do for others, but what we must do for ourselves.

Grant maintains that the United States is the worlds least-bad option:

The US, imperfect though it is, remains the best state actor for maintaining stability in an anarchic world order. Careful balancing of self-preservation (isolationism) and foreign engagements, i.e., wars, in order to avoid overextending itself is the only way to preserve global stability, and with that US domestic prosperity.

Jinyong wants to respond in different ways to different kinds of Chinese repression:

I know this might sound callous but I believe that our responsibility to act should be based on what best aligns with our national interests. Despite the horrific nature of the oppression occurring in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, there is very little we can do to stop said oppression, and to be frank, what happens in Xinjiang and Hong Kong doesn't really affect the balance of power in East Asia.

On the issue of Taiwan I believe that we have a responsibility to do more. Putting aside the fact that Taiwan is a thriving democracy, a PRC takeover of Taiwan would be an unmitigated disaster for our position in East Asia. Such an event would destroy our defensive position on the first island chain, start the dominoes for our eventual expulsion from East Asia, and would probably precipitate the PRC achieving regional hegemony. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Instead of canceling and slow-rolling arms orders like this current administration is doing, we need to be selling them way more arms including advanced weapons like the F-35B. Just look at Ukraine and the effect our arms transfers are having over there. We should be trying to do the same with Taiwan. Against the odds, Ukraine has shown that a smaller power can survive against a stronger one. We need to ensure Taiwan can do the same. We cant change what happened in Xinjiang and Hong Kong and we cant stop the war currently raging in Ukraine. But we can arm Taiwan to the teeth and ensure that deterrence continues to hold in that region. We still have time. Lets not waste it.

Read: 14 reader views on guns

Harold is a radical egalitarian redistributionist:

In an ideal world every nation and every person would have an obligation to help every other nation and person as far as their means would allow. So long as the basic needs of the population or person are being met, the obligation to the other should be stretched as far as possible. A need is something essential for sustaining life, not staving off discomfort. We are all stewards of the interconnected societies we inhabit. When another suffers, I suffer, and when another society suffers so too does our society.

Putting all of this into practice is difficult. Oftentimes we will fail. Unfortunately, we have an example of what a nation may look like when it views its only obligation as to itself: As China looks on at the carnage in Ukrainethe killing of Ukrainian children, women, and the elderly through indiscriminate bombing and brutal violence, the rape, and the leveling of entire citiesit still does not feel the need to intervene in even the slightest of ways.

China derives a great deal of power from its own people, but also from those in other nations who turn a blind eye and tirelessly consume the products and goods they produce. We must cease our enabling of China, lest we become no better, a nation without obligation.

Dr. Y wants Americans to help the world, but that doesnt mean he wants the help to go through the U.S. government:

We cannot help everyone, but everyone can help someone. This is an essential responsibility we all owe to humanity, but not necessarily to, or through our government.

I am an Evangelical; an oft maligned (sometimes fairly) and always misunderstood, unique flavor of Christianity. We are often asked, How can you be for helping people and against big government solutions? The answer is surprisingly simple. I believe that my responsibility to humanity rests on a much higher authority than merely our federal government. In addition I believe that social engineering should usually not be attempted through the coercive power of government, lest it violate ones personal conscience.

Monopolies always tend to foster bad behavior. This is not just true of the corporate world, it is unfortunately also true of my large denomination, which some considered a monopoly in the evangelical world. It is no less true of the federal government that has arguably grown to have a monopoly interest in social services. Such a monopoly has an adverse effect on local communities. There are more resources to throw at the problem. But that benefit comes at the expense of a large, distant, impersonal, bureaucratic mechanism that can suck the life out of local communities while offering financial assistance for their problems. I believe this is a major source of the demise of our small towns and communities today. The old clich is true: One always receives more than he gives. It is therefore a good investment. But when this is done through the coercive power of government it robs the act of its greater power of personal transformation. Such an approach robs the recipient of gratitude and replaces it with dependence. It robs the donor of humaneness and replaces it with resentment. It meets the physical needs of the moment, but ignores the spiritual needs and so diminishes the transaction.

Private benevolent NGOs have proven in every way to be more efficient and effective than large well intended federal programs. So I was scandalized not so long ago by a well-intended presidential candidates rather naive assertion that small government conservatives were selfishly motivated. He did not know me well enough to make that accusation. I annually give 1220% of my personal income, before taxes, to private benevolent enterprises. He did not have the advantage of seeing my tax return, but I was able to see his, made public as part of his candidacy. I knew that although he made significantly more money than I did, I in fact gave significantly more than he did in real dollars on an annual basis. It was not hypocrisy, or political cynicism on his part. He is in fact by all accounts a very generous and humane man. It was a failure to imagine any social structure other than a centralized and highly regulated government system.

He was a student of FDR. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I happen to follow a much older and more radical political thinker that walked the earth before modern democracies were a thing, speaking of the Kingdom of heaven. Talk of kingdoms is a scary thing for citizens of a democracy. To be clear, I am an ardent and patriotic supporter of our democracy. This is actually the real tension that has always existed within our republic between people of faith living in harmony within a pluralistic system. It is not new. Our founders designed our democracy to accommodate such separate spheres of influence as positive good. Some of the checks and balances within our system actually reside outside the actual governing system. The Church is a good example of this.

David helps his neighbors personally but wants the government to step in when it comes to international neighbors:

I am aware of food insecurity in Manhattan, where I live. I feel a responsibility to prioritize helping my fellow New Yorkers with their food needs, because they are part of my community, even though their situation is not as dire as people facing famine in other countries. Id like to see our country lead in helping other countries with food. As the wealthiest member of the global community, we have a responsibility to do so.

Perry believes that the U.S. has the means to stave off famine:

We have had ample surpluses of all kinds of commodities. Wheat, corn, milk, all manner of vegetables. The U.S. government PAYS farmers not to grow some things. The problem is that the supply chain to Africa and the Middle East is very slow and China has no incentive to speed it up. Yes, the containers and bulk haulers are still on that side of the world. The U.S. may not be able to fill the Ukraine gap in commodities but we can try. The problem now again will be politics. I am sure the Right will be very upset if we try.

Pat wants international institutions to get involved:

This is where the United Nations Food and Agriculture Program should be taking the lead, assessing the need, issuing a call to member countries with a prioritized list of requirements by country and by product, and coordinating deliveries. Any crisis of this scale requires a coordinated response to deliver whats needed in an efficient manner. Individual countries responding to individual countries is likely to result in confusion at best and lack of success at worst.

And Mitch is focused on perpetuating the species:

I dont feel responsible for addressing, in general, the various problems specific to other states or societies. I have little bandwidth to adequately consider the details of their situations. But I do feel a need to address issues that affect the future of all life forms on this planet. If you are an intellectually capable human, of typical emotional intelligence, you likely experience some empathy for all other humans, as well as other sentient life forms (too many species to list, but gorillas, chimps, dolphins, whales are examples). I strive to be considerate of all, but mainly I want to see the intellect established by homo sapiens continue to expand. And that perspective informs my priorities.

Thanks for all of your emails. Ill see you Wednesday.

More here:

America's Duty to Help the World's Vulnerable: 13 Reader Views - The Atlantic

THE ALTERNATIVE

By Reno Omokri

Let me make myself clear from the get-go. It is wrong for Buhari alone to single-handedly pick the Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress. It is undemocratic.

However, his statement that he should be allowed to pick his successor is not just undemocratic, it is treasonable. Buhari works for Nigerians, not vice versa. Even if he can arm-twist his way into picking the APC candidate, Nigerians will pick his successor!

And if his threat is predicated on repeating the massive rigging he supervised in 2019, then my response to him is to repeat what he (Buhari) said on May 15, 2012:

They either conduct a free and fair election or they go a very disgraceful way.-Muhammadu Buhari.

What nonsense is that? A man of low mentality, who has reduced Nigeria from the third fastest-growing economy in the world on May 29, 2015, to the world headquarters for extreme poverty today, is now saying he will produce his successor as if the electorate doesnt count?

Let him try it. But before he does, he should also remember what happened during #EndSARS. That was an unprecedented people movement sparked by governments oppression of the governed. And if Buhari tries a repeat of the shameful rigging that happened in 2019, he should prepare for EndSARS part 2!

The reality is that Buhari is not even politically savvy enough to anoint his successor. Look at what happened in his own state. His nephews were defeated in the APC primaries. His in-law was roundly trounced in Kaduna. In Kano, his aides were defeated. And in 2023, his candidate will be defeated by Nigerians!

Without the APC Governors, Buhari is a toothless bulldog. He can bark, but he has no bite. The real power in the party belongs to the Governors. And even they are fed up with Buhari. Their allocations from the federation account have been the worst in history under the ineffectual so-called General!

But coming back to Bola Tinubu, why is he now subtly attacking Buhari and insisting that he must be the Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress because he supported Buhari? Why is he sulking and agitating against Buharis stated intention to pick the APCs candidate?

I really dont get why Bola Tinubus people are complaining that Buhari cant choose who the APC candidate will be. Who chooses who becomes the candidate of the APC in Lagos? Is it not solely Tinubu? Who stopped Ambode from being re-elected? Was it not solely Tinubu? Did Ambode not pay for an All Progressives Congress Gubernatorial form in 2019? Did the APC not collect his money and refuse to refund him after Tinubu rejected him?

Did he not go and gather his brother Governors to beg Tinubu on his behalf? Did Governor Bagudu of Kebbi, who is the chairman of the Progressives Governors Forum, not prostrate to Tinubu on Ambodes behalf? Not that I support the imposition of candidates. However, what is good for Lagos APC is also good for national APC! Or should I say, what is good for Greece is also good for Uganda.

I am a student of history. I recall clearly that Samuel Doe relished slicing the flesh of his political opponents while they were still alive. However, when Prince Yormie Johnson arrested him on his way to seek safety with the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group, ECOMOG, Johnson gave Doe the special Doe treatment.

So, if Buhari decides to give Tinubu the special Ambode treatment, history justifies it! Tinubu cannot expect Buhari to treat him better than he, Tinubu, treated Ambode.

If Ambode was the Governor of Lagos on October 20, 2020, instead of Sanwo-olu, maybe the #LekkiMassacre of peaceful, unarmed #EndSARS protesters would not have happened. But Tinubu denied him the ticket. So, Buhari can deny Tinubu just as Tinubu denied Ambode. No one will cry foul!

Tinubu says he made Buhari President in 2015 and expects to be supported in 2023. That may or may not be true. But what is true is that Afenifere made Tinubu Governor in 1999, and he not only abandoned them, he also fought them. One bad turn deserves another!

The thing about Tinubus argument is that it is not about Nigeria, or its people. Watch his video in Ogun state while he was campaigning for delegates on Thursday, June 2, 2022. He said he made Buhari President and as such Buhari should support him. He played the same emotional blackmail against his host Governor, Dapo Abiodun, saying:

Dapo thats sitting down here, could he have become Governor without me? We were at the stadium, they tore all his posters. Even the party flag, they didnt want to hand over it to him, I was the one who brought it.

If he wants to meet God at the right place, he must know that without God and me, he would not have become Governor.

Nothing about what he would do for Nigerians. He is appealing to Buhari instead of Nigerians. So Nigerians should remain onlookers in his quarrel with Buhari. Let them fight and destroy their party the way they have destroyed Nigeria.

And the curious thing is that Buhari has not yet cheated Bola Tinubu, and Tinubu attacked him. Why did he not wait until after the primaries before attacking Buhari? Now, he has given Buhari an excuse not to support him. I thought Bola Tinubu knew how to play politics. I was wrong. Very wrong!

Look at his petty complaints? Buhari did not give me ministerial slots. Buhari did not give me contracts. Me, me, me! Like a spoilt child. Nothing about what Buhari has done to Nigeria, a country he met as the third fastest-growing economy in the world, and is leaving as the worlds headquarters for extreme poverty!

Tinubu was not even ashamed to say that Buhari did not want to contest, and had retired from politics until he went to Daura to beg him to contest in 2015. In other words, it is because of Tinubu we are suffering from the worst government in our history!

And hear him! I deserve to be President because I made Buhari President and it is my turn. Look at the egotistical entitlement! Nothing about what he did or would do for Nigeria or Nigerians. What kind of cult language is that? That he made Buhari President is precisely why Tinubu should not be President!

Tinubu is letting tantrums spoil what could have been a home run for him in the APC primaries. How can you call a Yoruba Governor eleyi to his face? Yoruba that love respect? Vice President Yemi Osinbajo must be dancing with his RCCG political directorate!

Tinubu is just behaving like Tonto Dikeh and Nkechi Blessing. Like a woman who was promised marriage and jilted and is now exploding and exposing the jilter. Buhari don buy market. He either builds another other room for Tinubu, or marry him as promised!

When he was doing Ambode, he did not have mercy. Now that Buhari is doing him, he is shouting eleyi all over the place. First to do e no dey pain. Jagaban to to di jagajaga. It is just that he did not buy a form. If not, I would have said Buhari should give it to Ambode!

Dr. Goodluck Jonathan did not accuse Tinubu of betraying him. Akinwunmi Ambode did not accuse Tinubu of betraying him. Afenifere is not accusing Tinubu of betraying them. Yet, after a political lifetime of betrayal and backstabbing, Tinubu is surprised with the breakfast he got served?

Because of Buhari, Tinubu insulted former Presidents Obasanjo, and Jonathan. He insulted Yoruba obas. He insulted #EndSARS protesters. And after all he has done, Buhari wants to do him I go chop your dollar! Ah! Aiye! This life no balance ra ra!

Tinubu portrayed ignorance of elementary rudiments of power politics. If you want a reigning king to anoint you, do not remind him of what you have done for him. Kings hate to be indebted to their subjects. Instead, remind the king of what you can still do for him in future!

With what I watched in Ogun state, if the NDLEA performs drug tests on all Presidential aspirants, as recommended by its Chairman, Buba Marwa, I seriously doubt that Bola Tinubu will pass it. Nobody throws stones like that unless they are stoned!

Bola Tinubu fall my hand, as the young people say. How can he expect a former coup plotter, who overthrew a democratically elected President, to keep to agreements? Shagari was a Fulani Muslim like him, yet Buhari overthrew him. If Buhari could overthrow his own brother, who is Tinubu that he cant betray?

And to further indicate his political navet, Tinubu proudly released a photo of him sitting in a chair in a mosque, to greet His Eminence, Alhaji Saad Abubakar, the Sultan of Sokoto.

But who is advising Tinubu? How can you follow Sarkin Musulumi to a mosque, and he will sit on the floor and you will sit in a chair? If you are too old to sit on the floor, like other Muslims, then you dont attend with the Sultan. Or maybe you stay somewhere else until Jumat is over. Buhari also sometimes sits in a chair because of old age, but NEVER in the presence of Sarkin Musulumi!

The Queen of England is the official head of the Church of England. Her official title is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, AKA Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith). Even the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot sit in her presence, until she sits.

The Sultan is the spiritual leader of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs. That photo, that Tinubu is proudly displaying, wont go down well in the North! It is like Osinbajo sitting and Adeboye standing, while both of them are having a one-on-one conversation!

Anyway, let me conclude with somewhat of a parable. Elections are very expensive in Nigeria. Its not every time we will be paying for advert. Sometimes, we just buy free advert by deliberately shaking some predictable tables so that we will get an echo and the biggest media will carry stories that theyd have otherwise asked us to pay for.

If you dont use this ogbon, you will just spend 1 billion, that you dont have, buying up full-page ads in papers and 60 second slots on TV. Instead of wasting money and energy, just create a wave and surf it until you get your message across.

#TableShaker

Like Loading...

Continued here:

Buhari, Give Tinubu The Special Ambode Treatment - THISDAY Newspapers

TUNIS, TUNISIAMy 26-year-old tour guide is one reason Zine El Abidine Ben Ali is no longer president of Tunisia. When protests broke out in December 2010, Hassan joined in, only to be shot in the shoulder by a government sniper. Since he could not go to a hospital, where he would be arrested, friends patched him up, leaving the bullet undisturbed. He went out the next day, he told me, and threw rocks with his other arm.

Tunisians like Hassan are at risk of losing the freedoms they gained at great cost.

Last July, President Kais Saied staged a coup against the Parliament and independent government agencies. He dismissed the prime minister and cabinet members, claimed all executive power, closed Parliament, prohibited public gatherings, arrested political opponents, and imposed travel bans. Claiming nonexistent constitutional authority, he later disbanded Parliament as well as independent judicial and electoral commissions, fired judges, and prosecuted critics. One political professional complained that Saied was basically destroying the state. She asked that her name not be usedone of many with whom I spoke who feared retribution from an increasingly authoritarian government.

Next, Saied plans to create hisconstitution, to be approved in a referendum on July 25, in which votes will be counted byhis election commissioners. Ahmed Nejib Chebbi, a former minister, long-time opposition activist, and head of the Democratic Progressive Party, pointed to a threefold crisis: political, social, and especially economic. With protests multiplying, an increasing number of Tunisians fear what the future might hold: dictatorship, military coup, or chaos.

Democracy advocates arranged for me to visit Tunisia last month and meet with a variety of professionals and activists. Many had voted for Saied. Some initially hoped that he would live up to his promise to restore democracy. Today few credit his professed good intentions. Instead, the near-uniform diagnosis is that he plans to install an authoritarian system, perhaps akin to the personalist rule of Muammar Gaddafi, who voiced similar political ideas.

More than a decade ago, the Jasmine Revolution erupted after corrupt Tunisian police repeatedly harassed a street vendor and confiscated his goods. He burned himself alive, triggering widespread demonstrations that brought down Ben Alis government. The Tunisian uprising sparked a succession of popular uprisings in the so-called Arab Spring. Unfortunately, no where else did democracy take hold.

In Tunisia, a nation of about 12 million, the people wrote a constitution, held elections, formed governments, and worked across ideological and religious lines. The moderate Islamic Ennahda Party was feared by some but eschewed extremist positions and joined coalitions with its secular counterparts. The Tunisian government supplanted increasingly authoritarian Turkey as the best example of a Muslim and Middle Eastern/North African democracy.

All was not well in Tunisia, however. Politicians bickered, governments appeared ineffective, and Tunisians didnt like what they saw. No wonder Otto von Bismarck warned against watching the making of sausages or laws. Yet Saied played a key role in creating the crisis, noted the head of an NGO who asked not to be identified. He actively obstructed the government, refusing to swear in cabinet members, for example.

Even more important were Tunisias economic problems. The Jasmine Revolution began with a protest against the corrupt, dirigiste economic system. Unfortunately, little changed under the new democratic governments. Observed Chebbi, Years later a lot of Tunisians feel that the political process didnt have the desired effect especially in terms of quality of life. The result, he added, is a crisis of confidence with the political class and democratically elected institutions.

When Saied, a little-known law professor who had won on a populist platform, seized control, many Tunisians gave him the benefit of the doubt.Since then, noted several people I spoke with, Saied has grown both more paranoid and punitive.

When members of the Parliament met online and voted to repeal his illegal decrees, he dissolvedthe assembly, which he accused of staging a coup attempt and having betrayed Tunisia. In drafting a constitution he has sought to disenfranchise virtually everyone who has been active politically over the last decade.His political visionappears to involve a leader invested with all power, to be advised by diffuse, powerless local assemblies, from which regional and national representatives would be chosen, kept disorganized and leaderless by a ban on political parties. An NGO leader contended that Saied intended to produce a very weak legislature.

Indeed,Saudi ArabiaandUnited Arab Emirates, which underwrite dictatorships in Egypt and Bahrain and obstructed democratic forces in Libya and Sudan, are widely believed to have encouraged Saied to stage his Machtergreifung. Egypt also may have played a role. Each fears democracy as well as the emergence of even a moderate variant of political Islam. Bloombergcolumnist Bobby Ghoshquipped: Tunisias President Kais Saied may not wear military fatigues, but hes doing a pretty good Sisi impression nonetheless.

Saied initially gained support by appealing to popular frustrations. When he vowed to fix the political system, punish corruption, and address the economy, many Tunisians applauded. One Saied critic acknowledged that people had expected the new revolutionary leaders to improve their lives: Democracy is not easy to understand when you cant feed your family. However, Chebbi believes the people have discovered that Saied would only make matters worse. A pollster told me that Saieds support has plummeted.Noted theNew York Times: The rebukes have come from staunch opponents and former allies alike, from political parties and from the media, and even from some of the same supporters who cheered in the streets when Mr. Saied froze Parliament, fired the prime minister and seized power.

Increasingly, the president is isolated and ruling alone. At the same time, noted one activist, now we are seeing opposition parties come together, making common cause for a return to democracy. I attended a large demonstration against Saieds power grab and spoke with some of the protestors. One complained that the president stole all the powers and put them all in one hand, his hand. She wanted to restore the constitution. Another, who voted for Saied, called the president a usurper. Yet another complained that Saied hasnt done anything for us.

On Saturday, police clashed with protestors who sought to march on the headquarters of the judicial council, which Saied had taken over. (Last week, he fired 57 judges.) More demonstrations are planned.

Perhaps even more significant, the Tunisian General Labor Union (UGTT), the nations largest labor union, rejected Saieds call for a national dialogue given his exclusion of democratic representatives; the union plans a general strike next week. Simon Speakman Cordall, a freelance journalist in Tunisia, observed: The UGTT and its million or so members have emerged as a unique political force in the country. The UGTT spans a number of subsidiary unions, and their power, along with their ability to mobilize that power, cannot be underestimated. So far, the security agencies have obeyed Saied, but their loyalty is likely to be increasingly tested.

Tunisias predicament prompts much gloom. One activist observed: Tunisia is like a room full of gas. Every week it is more full of gas. Although he doesnt believe Saied will be able to establish a real dictatorship, he fears the chaos that might ensue.

Not everyone was pessimistic, however. Rached Ghannouchi, head of the Ennahdha Party and ousted speaker of the assembly, said he was optimistic for future. He defended the revolution: We became a stable democracy contrary to the other failed democratic change experiments in the Arab world. He contended that Tunisians were in one of the stages of change, one of the different phases of democratic transformation. We hope to cross this phase peacefully.

Tunisia is now in the populist phase, Ghannouchi suggested, reflecting the very high expectations in social and economic terms held by the people, especially by the young. He noted that Saied won the election with a considerable majority without offering an economic program. However, the situation has changed dramatically: On the 25th of July from last year, the entirety of the political establishment and the media establishment were with the president. Ten months later and no one is with him anymore.

Key to the opposition succeeding may be developing a credible program for economic and political reform. One activist contended that support for Saied is dwindling because He shows no interest in solving peoples problems. However, in Tunisia, like America, it is hard to beat something with nothing. Chebbi emphasized the need for a genuine national dialogue to build consensus, a lawful political process, and early elections. Tunisians have a right to arbitrate this crisis through democratic tools, namely the ballot box.

What should the U.S. do?

Despite the Biden administrations rhetorical support for democracy, its stance toward Saied has been remarkably weak. OriginallyWashingtonissued generic statementsapplicable to both sides, for instance, stating that Tunisia must not squander its democratic gains and calling on Saied to adhere to the principles of democracy and human rights. In December,Washingtonwelcomed President Saieds announcement of a timeline outlining a path for political reform and parliamentary elections and look[ed] forward to a reform process that is transparent andinclusive of diverse political and civil society voices. However, the administration appears to be finally losing patience, and last month proposed cutting economic and military aid almost in half next year.

U.S. policymakers should recognize the limits of their influence. Given Saieds refusal to divert from his authoritarian course despite growing domestic opposition, he isnt likely to buckle under U.S. pressure. Indeed, he might head to Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to beg for handouts, following the example of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi after a similar partial cut-off of American aid.

Nevertheless, it is important for Washington to refuse to give its imprimatur for a regime that is growing more autocratic. Most Tunisian activists I spoke with hope for stronger opposition to Saieds dictatorial course.

What the Biden administration should do is use its bully pulpit to call for restoration of democracyreviving government institutions, respecting civil liberties and press freedom, undertaking a genuine national dialogue, engaging in an inclusive constitutional rewrite, followed by free votes to ratify the constitution and elect a new president and legislature. The Pentagon should encourage the Tunisian armed forces to respect the constitution rather than the constitutional usurper.

Washington should coordinate with Europe, which has greater historic, cultural, and economic ties with Tunisia. Washington should consider applying Magnitsky Act sanctions against Saied, his top officials, and government institutions. The threat might prove particularly effective against those who opportunistically supported Saied, only to see him hemorrhage public and foreign support.

Finally, the U.S. should end all financial assistance to Tunisia. Admittedly, thats a controversial proposal. Opposition activists disagree on the issue, with some worrying about triggering economic collapse. However, it would be worse for the U.S. to keep an emerging dictatorship afloat and subsidize a return to Tunisias oppressive past.

The Arab Spring loosed enormous optimism and hope. Tragically, in every case but Tunisia, the result was negative. And now, Tunisian democracy appears to be slipping away.

Still, hope remains. One activist said that in the end she didnt think the Tunisian people will accept dictatorship ten years after the revolution.

More than decade ago, the Tunisian people risked much to free themselves after decades of oppression. They will have to take a similar stand today to preserve the freedoms that they won in the Jasmine Revolution. People of good will in America and around the world should stand with them.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: Americas New Global Empire.

Read the original here:

Tunisian Democracy Is Slipping Away - The American Conservative