Who are the Uighur people and why do they face oppression by China? – The Independent

Posted on by

China is facing mounting global criticism over its treatment of the Uighur population in Xinjiang province with claims of forced labour camps and mass sterilisation.

Boris Johnsons government has accused Beijing of egregious human rights abuses against the minority group, while Donald Trumps administration has imposed sanctions on Chinese officials linked to alleged oppression.

So who are the Uighurs? And what sort of evidence lies behind these claims? The Independent took a closer look at a group largely forgotten by the world until recent weeks.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

Who are the Uighur people?

The Uighur are an ethnic minority group of Muslims living in Chinas north-west region of Xinjiang. There are an estimated 11 million Uighurs in the region almost half of its total population.

Uighur Muslims have been there for hundreds of years and speak a language related to Turkish. It is believed their ancestors may have come from a previous homeland of the Turks in the northern part of central Asia.

Some Uighurs dont accept that Xinjiang officially an autonomous region is part of China, citing evidence that their ancestors lived in the area before Chinese Han and Tang dynasties established their dominion in the area.

What sort of abuse is thought to be taking place?

There is credible evidence that up to one million Uighurs and other Muslim minorities are being held in re-education detention centres in Xinjiang, according to a report by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Beijing has denied any mistreatment claiming that these camps are vocational training centres which help stamp out extremism by Islamist separatists, as well as giving people new skills.

A man driving a vehicle in an Uighur neighbourhood in Aksu, Xinjiang province (AFP via Getty Images)

However, a 2018 report by Amnesty International report found that arbitrary detention of Uighur Muslims across the province was widespread. The exile group World Uyghur Congress claims detainees are held without charge, and forced to undergo attempted indoctrination by shouting Chinese Communist Party slogans.

When recently confronted with disturbing video footage showing blindfolded men kneeling and waiting to be led onto trains in Xinjiang, Chinas ambassador to the UK told the BBC the video could be fake. The video was authenticated by the Australian security services.

No hype, just the advice and analysis you need

Whats behind the claims of mass sterilisation?

There is evidence Chinese government is taking draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population.

A report released in June by China scholar Adrian Zenz claimed the Chinese authorities were forcing Uighur women to be sterilised or fitted with contraceptive devices across Xinjiang.

A recent Associated Press investigation discovered women in the province have faced fines and threats of detention for breaching limits on having babies. It also found the authorities force intrauterine devices (IUDs), sterilisation and even abortion on Uighur women.

Protesters attend a rally in Hong Kong to show support for the Uighur minority in China (AFP/Getty)

What political action has been taken?

The US has imposed sanctions on Chinese officials, companies and institutions linked to Chinas treatment of Uighurs in the Xinjiang region. On 20 July, the US Commerce Department added 11 Chinese companies to the US economic blacklist.

Earlier this week UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab accused Chinese officials of committing gross, egregious human rights abuses in Xinjiang but the British government stopped short of introducing sanctions against officials accused of abuse against the Uighur.

France also condemned the treatment of the ethnic group. French finance minister Bruno Le Maire said it was revolting and unacceptable and called for international independent observers to be allowed to inspect conditions in Xinjiang.

What about private companies using Uighur labour?

More than 180 human rights groups have urged brands from Adidas to Amazon to end sourcing of cotton and clothing from the Xinjiang region and cut ties with any suppliers in China that benefit from what they claim to be forced labour.

While most fashion brands do not source from factories in Xinjiang, many of their supply chains are likely to be tainted by cotton picked by Uighurs that is exported across China and used by other suppliers, a coalition of organisations said in a letter.

More than 80 per cent of Chinas cotton comes from Xinjiang. Brands and retailers recognise there is a massive problem in the region, and that their supply chains are exposed to a grave risk of forced labour, said Scott Nova, head of the US-based Worker Rights Consortium (WRC).

Excerpt from:

Who are the Uighur people and why do they face oppression by China? - The Independent

Portland’s heroic Wall of Moms is standing up for the Constitution – Las Vegas Sun

Posted on by

Noah Berger / AP

In this July 20, 2020, file photo, Norma Lewis holds a flower while forming a wall of moms during a Black Lives Matter protest in Portland, Ore. When armed protesters took over a remote wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon four years earlier to oppose federal control of public lands, U.S. agents negotiated with the conservative occupiers for weeks while some state leaders begged for stronger action. In July 2020, federal officers sent to Portland, Ore., to quell chaotic protests against racial injustice took swift and, some say, harsh action: launching tear gas, firing less-lethal ammunition and helping arrest more than 40 people in the first twoweeks.

Thursday, July 23, 2020 | 2 a.m.

When Bev Barnum of Portland, Ore., learned that squads of secret police were snatching up people in her community without explanation, she did what American heroes have been doing since the start of our nation when faced with government oppression. She confronted it nose to nose and refused to back down.

Barnum is a founder of the Wall of Moms, the group of women who aligned themselves in Portland to protest the Trump administrations extrajudicial detainments in the city over the past several days. The group, which also turned out in support of the Black Lives Matter movement, started with about 70 individuals Saturday during its first appearance, when it shielded protesters from federal agents posted outside the federal building.

Despite being unjustifiably hit with tear gas and pepper balls, the group came right back for another round of peaceful demonstration Sunday, this time about 200 strong and with a very pregnant woman in their ranks. And although federal authorities have repeatedly gassed them, detonated flash-bang grenades near them and fired nonlethal projectiles at them, the group has remained on guard, night after night.

Well stop when there is no protester that needs our protection, said Barnum, 35, to CNN. We get thanks every which way. But were not doing it for the thanks. Were doing it to protect human rights.

Thats pure American spirit standing up to injustice, abuse of authority and tyranny.

And make no mistake, the reason for the Wall of Moms actions is legitimate. As the situation in Portland has revealed, President Donald Trump is making America look more and more like a junta.

In fact, the scene involving Barnum and her counterparts is starkly reminiscent of mothers protests in Argentina after its coup detat and during during the bloody regime of Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet in the 1970s and 1980s. In both countries, the mothers movements were instrumental in restoring democracy as dictators secret police disappeared dissidents from the streets.

Pinochet used his secret police to round up nearly 28,000 people in an attempt to erase the legacy and influence of his predecessor. His regime tortured and executed detainees, some of whom have still not been accounted for.

Enter the mothers movement, which began working to call attention to the victims quietly by creating and distributing tapestries in honor of Pinochets victims, then grew more assertive to the point of speaking out about the atrocities.

The mothers protests took a long time, but they were instrumental in bringing down the junta.

Now the images from Portland law-abiding people being thrown into unmarked vans by what amounts to a secret police and peaceful women being gassed and hit with projectiles are a resonant display of how low Trump has sunk.

The federal action is flatly unconstitutional under the First and 14th amendments, which, respectfully, give Americans the right to dissent and protect them from arrest without probable cause. And its a serious step forward in Trumps dawning attempt to be a dictator.

Trump says Portland is totally out of control, but when pressed for examples of violence, all the Department of Homeland Securitys acting director could offer was graffiti. Thats right, graffiti is now a major concern of Homeland Security and it is considered, apparently, a violent crime. Meanwhile, abuses at the hands of police tear-gassings, beatings, unwarranted arrests and detainments of neutral bystanders and observers have fueled tensions and confrontations.

The larger question becomes: How much further will Trump try to force this junta? Is having people disappear into secret long-term detainment next? One could argue weve already crossed that threshold for the children separated from their families at the southern border. Some will never be reunited with their families because of Trumps sadistic actions.

It is both fitting and thrilling to see the mothers of Portland rise up to protect their children and their city from improper federal action. Chanting The moms are here, feds stay clear, these mothers are champions of American values while Trumps secret police trample our Constitution.

These are everyday Americans putting their bodies on the line to arrest our nations slide into dictatorship. These are not violent anarchists Trump and his flunkies keep wailing about from their bunkers. No American should forget that our president is frightened enough by pregnant women and mothers to have his forces gas them. We just dress like were going to Target, one of the mothers said. She was tear-gassed during the first protest and returned every night since. America at its finest.

But with Trumps approval ratings in the tank and his chances of being thrown out of office looking stronger every day, hes clearly intensifying his bid to exert authoritarian control. Not only has he co-opted DHS and other agencies to use as his secret police, but hes vowing to take over other cities besides Portland. As youre reading this, a Portland-style strike force may be on its way to Chicago.

And his assault on protesters is just one of the ways that Trump, abetted by Attorney General William Barr, is weaponizing federal law enforcement and the Justice Department against American citizens. They are trying to criminalize dissent, and that is antithetical to American values.

Against that backdrop, groups like the Wall of Moms are invaluable. Our nations democracy needs all the protectors it can get.

The rest is here:

Portland's heroic Wall of Moms is standing up for the Constitution - Las Vegas Sun

What will be major pillars of Turkish foreign policy in next 3 years? | Daily Sabah – Daily Sabah

Posted on by

The direction of Turkish foreign policy in the last two years gives some clues as to how Turkey will approach the current issues in the next three years, until 2023. President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, who signaled that Turkey in the upcoming period would continue to voice its motto that the world is bigger than five, said Ankara would continue to be everywhere in terms of its influence and presence as well as its soft power until the oppressed achieve justice and sustainable peace and security are realized.

On Tuesday, Erdoan led the Two-Year Presidential Government System Evaluation Meeting where he elaborated on the activities of his government, which could hardly be squeezed into an 81-page booklet. In his speech, which lasted for more than two hours, the president gave significant indicators of the direction Turkish foreign policy would take in the upcoming period.

The president talked about the developments, the initiatives and the progress that Turkey had made in a wide spectrum of sectors, including the economy, foreign policy, technology, defense industry projects, tourism, social services, energy and the health care system.

One of his most striking statements in terms of foreign policy was that Turkey would never permit the oppression of those in countries such as Syria, Libya and Myanmar. Again, taking a firm stance against Armenia on Azerbaijan, Erdoan gave a message to those whose histories bear the marks of colonialism and massacres. He stated that Turkeys presence on the field was not prompted by the aim of taking advantage of these countries natural resources, as some countries do, but rather by border and national security concerns. He also stressed that Turkeys ongoing cross-border operations in Syria and Iraq are in compliance with international agreements. All steps and decisions have been taken in line with Turkey's rights of national sovereignty, he said.

Up to this point, we expressed that we do not have eyes on the land, sovereignty and especially natural resources of anyone. Whatever immorality others will engage in, we will not stray from the path our faith and history shows us," Erdoan said.

The president further highlighted that additional steps are being taken to strengthen the energy cooperation with Libya, and he called on everyone attacking Libya's official government to respect international law and the will of the Libyan people.

In light of the presidents aforementioned statements, it is clear Turkey will continue its operations in Syria and Libya until the legitimate will of the Libyan and Syrian people is met and peace is established. Henceforth, Ankara's position on these two issues is two central pillars of Turkeys foreign policy, which were also underlined in the most recent National Security Council meeting on Wednesday.

In another mark of Turkey's decisiveness on the matter of Libya, Erdoan said Ankara will continue to support the official Libyan government, adding that no one should expect Turkey to withdraw from the country, as the Turkish government would not allow this.

Additionally, Erdoan, who drew attention to the anti-democratic nature of the recent so-called elections in Syria, said that the polls were met by astonishing silence from the international community, which did not comply with the democratic tradition of the United Nations and countries that call themselves the cradle of democracy.

Meanwhile, as a mark of the success of Ankaras Syria policy, the number of Syrians returning to their homes exceeded 402,000 as a result of Turkey siding with the Syrian people and its operations to clear terrorists from residential areas.

Concerning policies in the Eastern Mediterranean, Erdoan said Turkey continues its activities in the region under the framework of sovereignty and international law and underlined that Ankara does not need permission to carry out work there.

The president also highlighted Ankaras sensitivity regarding Iraqs political unity and territorial integrity, stating that the primary topics on both countries agendas are the fight against terrorist organizations, investment, the development of trade and the protection of Iraqi Turkmens rights.

Aside from the regional countries specifically mentioned in the speech, Erdoan also discussed the acceleration in relations with African nations, the Balkans and those within its cultural influence sphere. He only briefly mentioned Russia, the European Union and the U.S., noting the busy diplomatic relations with these entities. In fact, these countries are already involved actors at the negotiating table and on the field in Turkeys main foreign policy issues. The shuttle diplomacy Ankara has carried out in the past two years with Washington, Moscow, Brussels and Berlin has been busier than ever. The main issues handled were, in general, Syria, Libya, the Eastern Mediterranean and the fight against terrorism.

Overall, it seems that Turkeys main agenda in its foreign policy until the 2023 elections will be these ones. Turkey will continue on its path until these governments grow weary of arm wrestling with Ankara both at the negotiating table and on the field. Furthermore, Turkey will continue to seek cooperation and win-win bargaining to establish sustainable peace and stability in the region and the world, without compromising its national sovereignty rights, national security and the interests of the oppressed.

See the rest here:

What will be major pillars of Turkish foreign policy in next 3 years? | Daily Sabah - Daily Sabah

Opinion: one person’s face mask is another’s face covering the double standard is irrational – The Mandarin

Posted on by

You might think a face covering is just a mask, but it is in fact a human right.Or not.It depends on whos wearing it.Or not.

Allow me to explain.

From Thursday, Melbournes population were the first Australians since the time of the Spanish Flu required by law to wear a face mask. The response of most will be the same as for every other COVID-19 measure: unenthusiastic but willing compliance.

For a small but vocal number, it means war.

For some time in the United States, face masks have been not so much a public health matter as a statement of political allegiance.That clear divide masks for liberals (and people who want to live), no masks for freedom warriors has broken down in the face of medical reality. Even President Donald Trump (kind of) gave in.

For the hard core, however, masks are still totemic of government oppression.

The mere suggestion of enforced mask-wearing ignites a reaction from some that appears to be deeply emotional.It makes people very, very angry, well beyond a passion that mere inconvenience or aesthetic discomfort could invoke.Were not talking practicality here, but rights.

US founding father Patrick Henrys call in 1775 Give me liberty or give me death has never been more literally true. The declared human right to not wear a mask is being held above not just the public good, but even personal safety.That is libertarianism at its extremity.

All good, if batty but there is an oddity: many of the voices loudly insisting face masks are an unjustified impingement on human rights are the same voices who have a serious problem with facial coverings of a different kind.

For many cultures and religions, head and face coverings are a visual representation of allegiance or faith.For some reason those worn by Muslim women really piss some people off.

Get the Juice - the Mandarin's free daily newsletter delivered to your inbox.

Youll also receive special offers from our partners. You can opt-out at any time.

Their objections have had impact: in a significant number of European and African countries burqas, veils and other face coverings have been outlawed.

One of those countries is France, which has just placed itself in the mother of all contradictions as it introduces mandatory face masks.

Literally, it is both illegal to wear a face covering and illegal not to. It just depends on why youre wearing it.

Thats not difficult logic: public order overrides the right to wear a veil by choice, forcing its removal, while public health dictates that it be put back on.

The SAD (Sky after dark) position is comfortably settled: Muslim face coverings are bad social divisiveness, terrorists hiding under burqas, etc but mandatory face masks are also bad liberty, freedom, etc.

In one sense those positions do reconcile, being consistently in favour of an uncovered face.However, they are argued from opposed principles.

Its difficult to understand why it is asserted there is a human right to choose to not wear a face covering, but there is not also a human rightto choose to wear one.According to SAD theorists, the choice to wear a face covering is so far removed from being a right that they have no problem with it being prohibited by law.

Clearly whats good for the goose is not good for the (Muslim) gander.It might be explained as basic bigotry, the usual fear of difference given voice. But I dont think that suffices.

Those who would prevent a Muslim woman from wearing a veil would not deny her the right to refuse to put it back on as a mask. So its not quite black and white.

I think theres also something here about the human value of a face.We just like to see them.Its irrational but also completely understandable that when the state gestures towards masking our faces there is a discomfort.

Its not something Im keen on doing, less so of being forced although Im more than happy to comply in the cause of public health.Others dont move past their discomfort, their preference, and thats easily converted to an assertion of right.

In that context, the double standard isnt hard to see and becomes a perfect case study of how bigotry defeats its own logic.

If our faces are sovereign to ourselves then the choice to cover or not is necessarily solely ours.If on the other hand you still think the state has the right to forcibly remove a persons veil, it must also be able to make you wear a mask.

Make your choice. You cant have it both ways.

Michael Bradley is a freelance writer and managing partner at Sydney firm Marque Lawyers, which was created in 2008 with the singular ambition of completely changing the way law is practised.

This article is curated from our sister site Crikey.

The rest is here:

Opinion: one person's face mask is another's face covering the double standard is irrational - The Mandarin

Diane Dimond: Teaching toxic topics on the taxpayer’s tab – Northern Virginia Daily

Posted on by

It is clear we have real racial problems in this country, problems that need to be worked through as we try to restore some semblance of harmony and understanding among the population.

National healing starts with meaningful conversations, devoid of angry rhetoric and criminal reactions, and needs to include everyone studiously listening to opposing viewpoints. It is the old idea of walking a mile in someone elses shoes and understanding their pain.

What we dont need now are diversity racketeers making a buck off racial turmoil. Unfortunately, that is what is happening, and taxpayers are often footing the bill.

Profiteers calling themselves anti-racism trainers have been hired to lecture white federal employees about their racist attitudes at several agencies the Treasury and Justice Departments, the Federal Reserve, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Institutes of Health, to name a few. The training sessions start from the premise that virtually all white people contribute to racism, and they dont support doing away with racist institutions. Session leaders insist that all whites must be reprogrammed to rid themselves of their ingrained racial biases. At the core of these diversity lessons is the stated condemnation of an entire race of people: whites.

Wait a minute. Isnt that the exact attitude these trainers say they are trying to combat? How can vilifying an entire race of people to elevate another race ever result in a positive outcome? How can these tactics ever possibly bring us together?

Documentary filmmaker Christopher Rufo has reported extensively about this disturbing trend of anti-racist training. He says there are now dozens of private firms currently offering racial diversity training to government agencies, corporations and universities. Rufo reports that the tragic death of George Floyd at the knee of a Minneapolis police officer has sparked an uptick in interest in these politically correct, high-cost seminars.

The question, of course, is do they help soothe race relations, or are they simply a feel-good measure that does more harm than good?

The latest course for federal workers is called Difficult Conversations About Race in Troubling Times. White government supervisors are instructed to provide safe spaces where Black employees can be seen in their pain explaining what it means to be Black to their white counterparts. Whites are instructed to sit in silence and in the discomfort of their individual racism. Whites are told they cannot protest and dont get to decide when someone is being too emotional, too rash (or) too mean. Whites are not allowed to protest if a black colleague responds to their oppression in a way (they) dont like.

Call me crazy, but this doesnt sound like a positive tactic to bring about racial harmony among employees. This approach doesnt help us reach the promised land of a harmonious society or contribute to colleagues understanding the content of their co-workers character. Making whites sit in humiliated silence, atoning for the sins of unidentified bigots, doesnt reveal anything about their true mindset on race relations. This methodology seems tailor-made to instill bitterness and divisiveness.

Also, consider whats happening within the U.S. Army. Recently, the Armys Equity and Inclusion Agency held race-based reeducation seminars for both uniformed and civilian personnel at a facility in Alabama. The idea behind Operation Inclusion was to expand the program to all Army Four-star commands.

Again, it sounds like a good idea to hold sessions designed to foster better race relations. But according to material included in the Operation Inclusion session, whites are never to mention certain ideas and phrases considered racist. Included: the concept that there is only one human race, that Blacks can be racially prejudiced against whites and that America should celebrate Columbus Day. Also labeled racist in the Army seminar were the phrases All Lives Matter and Make America Great Again, and if one believes in the concepts of colorblindness, then you are deemed to be no better than a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

I, for one, am mighty tired of self-appointed Speech Police and being told Im an automatic racist when I know in my heart I am not.

Defining an entire race of people as something reprehensibly offensive is not a way to build racial rapport. And paying for such damaging teachings with taxpayers dollars is inexcusable.

Diane Dimonds latest book, Thinking Outside the Crime and Justice Box, is available on Amazon.com. Email: dianedimond.com

Original post:

Diane Dimond: Teaching toxic topics on the taxpayer's tab - Northern Virginia Daily

How Burundi’s independent press lost its freedom – The Conversation CA

Posted on by

The general and presidential elections of May 2020, followed by the death of President Pierre Nkurunziza, put the international media spotlight on Burundi. The country is now facing one of the darkest times in its history since the 2015 crisis.

The crisis that year began when Nkurunziza, who had been in office since 2005, announced he would run for a third term.

The move was dubbed unconstitutional and the announcement triggered protests that were stifled and eventually banned by the authorities. Despite the protests, Nkurunziza was re-elected in July in polls boycotted by the opposition.

Since then, freedom of the press in Burundi has deteriorated considerably in an atmosphere of tension and repression. Local media have been silenced by repeated attacks from the government and the state security apparatus.

The remaining independent voices face difficult conditions. There are restrictive controls on the press and journalists and a constant fear of reprisals from elements enjoying impunity.

The Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Agreement of 2000, also known as the Arusha Accords, added to the wave of hope that was brought on by the end of Burundis 12-year civil war.

The agreement was signed in August 2000 after protracted negotiations facilitated by former presidents Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Nelson Mandela of South Africa. The agreement was the beginning of a reconciliation process that also implied greater freedom of the press.

But since 2005, when Nkurunziza was elected under the National Council for the Defense of Democracy Forces for the Defense of Democracy party, relations between the state and the media have become severely strained.

During the 2000s, private radio stations could oppose state oppression to an extent. They provided a platform for political opposition and civil society, and reported on embezzlement, corruption and human rights violations.

But as in past regimes, Burundian journalists faced huge difficulties when covering highly sensitive topics. Journalists were barred from covering rebel activities and issues relating to security and maintaining public order.

Mistrust between the government and the press deepened. Journalists experienced increasing threats, intimidation and imprisonment. In 2013, a highly controversial media law was passed which undermined the protection of sources, limited subjects on which journalists could report, and imposed new fines for media found in violation of the law.

The National Communication Council, which is supposed to regulate the sector, has been exploited by political authorities, and its independence has been severely compromised. In media circles, the council is perceived to be a government puppet.

Nkurunzizas decision to run for a third term in office, in defiance of the countrys constitution, essentially created a media vacuum in Burundi. Private media coverage of protests against a potential third term immediately strained relations with political authorities; some radio stations were suspended and threats were made against journalists in the field.

The attempted military coup in May 2015 was a major turning point. Loyalist forces destroyed work and broadcasting equipment in newsrooms and burned down the headquarters of several media outlets. The forces accused them of pro-coup bias and broadcasting seditious messages. Private radio and television stations were heavily affected.

The attempted coup gave Nkurunziza and his supporters a pretext to lock down the already weakened political and media landscape. The independent media, seen as being on the side of the opposition, became an enemy of the government.

Exile became the only option for some members of the press. Dozens of independent journalists were forced to flee the heavy-handed repression.

The crackdown on independent radio left the field wide open to Burundis state broadcaster, which is the governments mouthpiece. Even international journalists, who are usually granted a certain immunity, have suffered pressure and intimidation from the government security apparatus.

In the turmoil brought about by the crisis, it is worth mentioning the remarkable role played by IWACU. The independent newspaper remained in operation despite the dangerous conditions. Four of its journalists were imprisoned in 2019. They were accused of collusion with rebels operating on the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo. Eventually, its director was forced into exile.

The online platform SOS Mdias Burundi, coordinated by a social media collective, also stands out. It was formed at the time of the crisis and operates clandestinely.

Despite a few courageous voices who stood their ground, the 2015 crisis ushered in a climate of terror and deep mistrust between the government and the remaining independent media.

The COVID-19 pandemic broke out in Burundi the day before the May 2020 elections. So that they could go ahead unhindered, the government adopted a strategy of denial, invoking the countrys divine protection.

The deportation of the World Health Organisation representative and his team of three experts was one of the most glaring indications of the restriction of information in Burundi. In spite of their refusal to officially acknowledge the pandemic, Burundian authorities still imposed quarantine on national and foreign travellers.

The lack of strict preventive action and social distancing in the country, and the underestimation of the scale of the infection, have been severely criticised.

Social and electoral gatherings continued with minimal, or no, health protection measures. This led some Burundian medical professionals and civil society members trying to warn the media and the public of the worsening health situation and the lack of testing.

In this context, the reporting surrounding the death of President Nkurunziza was of critical importance. According to a government press release, the unexpected death of the Burundian head of state, which took place in the Karuzi hospital on 8 June 2020, was caused by a heart attack.

Many international media outlets reported suspicions that the real cause of death was COVID-19, which would have made Nkurunziza the first leader to die from the virus in office.

The least that can be said is that there is no clear information surrounding government action on the pandemic and its consequences.

Since the May 2020 elections, the international community has moved towards normalising relations with the new president, variste Ndayishimiye, awaiting signs of openness on his part.

Western diplomatic missions appear to be keeping a low profile, limiting themselves to a handful of policy statements. But can diplomacy return to normal if the media landscape does not? The crisis cannot truly be said to be over if there is still no real space for public debate through a free and independent press.

Translated from the French by Alice Heathwood for Fast ForWord

Go here to read the rest:

How Burundi's independent press lost its freedom - The Conversation CA

Iran’s Regime Tries to Spread Despair Among People With COVID-19, NCRI’s Free Iran Global Summit Foiled This Remarks by Rudy Giuliani – NCRI -…

Posted on by

Senator Joe Lieberman(left), Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator Torricelli in the Free Iran Global Summit July 17, 2020

According to information tallied by the Peoples Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), over 77,000 people have lost their lives to the COVID-19 pandemic.The high mortality rate in Iran is indeed the direct result of the Iranian regimes deliberate inaction and cover-up of the novel coronavirus since its outbreak.

The nationwide Iran protests in November 2019 and peoples general boycott of the regimes sham parliamentary elections highlighted this truth that peoples conflict with the regime has reached an irreversible point. The Iranian regimes forty years of oppression, violence, wrong economic policies, and export of terrorism have brought nothing but poverty and destitution for the Iranian people. On the other hand, the Iranian society has turned into a powder keg. To prevent the explosion of the publics hatred, the Iranian regime criminally used the COVID-19 outbreak as a momentum and a tool to control the society. Denying the existence of the virus, deliberate inaction, cover-up and downplaying the crisis and thus forcing people back to work were part of the regimes plan to control the society. In addition, the regime and its apologists have been trying to spread fear and despair among people and somehow paralyze the real force of change.

Meanwhile the Iranian Resistance, particularly the MEKs Resistance Units, have been spreading a message of hope with their ongoing activities across Iran, from posting banners to helping victims and collecting real information of the dimension of crisis and exposing regimes criminal policy of herd immunity.

In order to echo the Iranian peoples desire for regime change and support the MEKs Resistance Units, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) held the Free Iran Global Summit, for three days, connecting over 30,000 locations from more than 100 countries in four continents to Ashraf 3, the MEKs headquarters in Albania. This event enjoyed the support of over 1000 renowned politicians.

The NCRIs Free Iran Global Summit spread the message of hope among all Iranians. In addition, it showed the world there is a viable and powerful alternative. A capable alternative that removes any obstacle on its way to bringing change inside Iran.

The Iranian regime is engulfed with crisis. The countrys economy is collapsing due to the regimes misuse of funds and institutionalized corruption. People are grappling with COVID-19, economic hardship, and oppression. Fearing the eruption of a new uprising, and to legitimize its rule, the regime and its apologists try to discredit their viable alternative.

In this regard, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor, made important remarks on the first day of the Free Iran Global Summit.

Maryam Rajavi, distinguished participants, and all of us who are gathered here in order to move forward with a free, democratic, and peaceful Iran. Im joined, as you can see, by your great representative, advocate, friend, Bob Torricelli, and your equally staunch supporter, Senator Joe Lieberman, two great American leaders and two people who are very, very staunch defenders and advocates of a free, democratic, and peaceful Iran. Its an honor to be with them and its an honor to be with you. And its very exciting to be part of the largest virtual gathering in the world, connecting people on Zoom. I cant imagine it. From 102 countries, almost 30,000 different locations.

The event, most importantly, is broadcast live in Iran to the people of Iran who are living under terror, tyranny, oppression, and lets say to them that this gathering is for them. This is to let them know that their fight for freedom is supported around the world. That there are freedom lovers, both Iranian and of all nationalities, that support you at the highest levels of their governments.

The people of Iran through their protests, starting in November of 2019 and almost continuously every week, every day, have demonstrated the great desire they have for freedom and theyve demonstrated in a way in which theyve put their lives on the line. That is a very, very powerful demonstration of just how strong the desire for freedom is in Iran. IN the very early days of those protests, over 1,500 people were killed by the murderous regime of terror. And the people of Iran have made it clear to the whole world that if they could have their way, and theyre going to have it, they would want a free Iran, a democratic Iran, a peaceful Iran, an Iran ruled by law, an Iran where people can practice their religion, and an Iran in which women are treated the same as men. Those are precisely the goals of the National Council of Iranian Resistance, precisely the goals of MEK, and they are the goals enunciated by Maryam Rajavi in her very, very brilliant and universal 10 principles, which are completely consistent with the highest values of the United States and similar governments.

Two slogans during the protest I think are vital to show how the people of Iran feel, because you can see these signs consistent through many of the 300 or so protests, or more, that have taken place. And it says, Reformists, hard liners, the game is over. And then theres one that says, Down with the dictator. Now, its one thing for me to say that and to hold that sign here in America or in the United Kingdom or France or Germany or wherever else you are. It is another thing to hold that sign in Tehran. Thats a mark of death. Its very likely, very possible, youre going to be singled out to be one of those people whos shot down in the street if you oppose the regime. It is surely likely youre going to be murdered if you support the MEK or any similar movement. Theres just no question about that. And despite that and despite the 1,500 murders right at the beginning that continue to this day, the protests are not slowing. The protests are not lessening. Theyre becoming greater and greater and greater.

As stated in the letter that was signed by the 31 U.S. dignitaries to set forth our belief, we say as a group there is a beacon of hope in this dark landscape. The one organization that has done more than any other, including government, to free Iranian citizens from tyranny and the world from fundamentalist-inspired terrorism, is the National Council of Resistance of Iran, NCRI. The NCRI strives relentlessly to ensure that hope for democracy and an end to injustice and tyranny remains alive in Iran. Additionally, with continual media outreach, publications and meetings, it sustains international attention on the ongoing assault against humanity, and may I add, by the regime of terror.

The NCRI is under the leadership of Maryam Rajavi, a woman who has the respect of all of us. Shes been a hero. She is a dedicated leader with tremendous, tremendous understanding of the plight of the Iranians and whats needed to bring Iran to a democratic alternative for the regime. I outlined before her clear program of principles about freedom of religion and of course gender equality, the mere fact that shes a woman leading a group like this is revolutionary. Can you imagine, can you imagine when this terrible regime falls, and it will fall, and shes the interim leader, to have a woman as the head of state. I believe it will completely transform a great deal of the Middle East and a great deal of the world.

The NCRI under Madame Rajavi offers for us the universal vision of freedom. Going back to the Old Testament and all through civilizations this has been the quest of the human heart, the human soul. And again, thats illustrated by the fearless people in Iran who demonstrate for freedom despite the fact that they can see that their lives can be taken. It happens right in front of them. The MEK is the main component of the NCRI, and with its network, its the driving force for change. And thats the reason why the regime is singled out for murder.

There are those Iranian apologists here in America and in the West, people who are paid by the Iranian regime, who said the NCRI and the MEK dont amount to much. Theyre a cult. They have very few followers. They have no chance to replace the regime. But then if you listen to the words of the Ayatollah and his puppet, Rouhani, just over the last year, two or three times the Ayatollah and four or five times Rouhani have said that the only threat to their regime, the only organization that has any change to put together a government to replace them, is the NCRI and the MEK. I mean, its amazing they would admit that, but they do. Its equally amazing that the corrupt Western press suppresses that. I can only attribute that to the power of the lobbying organizations for Iran who have sold their souls to the regime of terror. But we know the truth. And they know the truth. They know that this organization is a total threat to them, and when they see today this gathering of people taking advantage of Zoom and the new modern methods of communication, and our ability to broadcast all throughout Iran despite their best efforts to block us, they realize they have a formidable foe. They realize and can foresee how this group could easily stand up an interim government that could be a bridge to a permanent Democratic free prosperous and wonderful Iran, because the Iranian people deserve that. And the Iranian people can sustain that.

The economy in Iran is collapsing. And thats a tragedy. No one wants to see that. Its horrible to see these demonstrations. And the one that sticks in my mind, I know it goes back about a year, but I cant get it out of my mind, is the man who was standing there asking for four or five hundred dollars

equally poignant and desperate signs. People are starving. Even when Iran was getting a flow of money like the 1.7 billion dollars in cash that I will never understand that was delivered to Iran as the price of the ill-fated nuclear agreement, people in Iran were starving. And now with the much more effective sanctions that have been in effect since the new administration came into power in Washington, the sanctions have been crushing. And now with coronavirus adding to it, the level of poverty and the level of hunger and the level of pain in Iran is heartbreaking.

The only solace is that this is what happens when revolution takes place. This is what happened to the Soviet Union that led to the collapse of a much, much bigger empire. All of Eastern Europe. And its tragic that its not recognized that this regime is on the brink right now. Particularly with its handling of coronavirus, in which they allowed thousands, 70,000 or more of their people to die, without any help. The government at one point allocated $1 billion to help the people, which would have been totally insufficient. And only 30% of it has been distributed. Everybody in Iran knows that the reason that the people of Iran are suffering is not only the sanctions, its not only coronavirus, its the fact that they still allocate tremendous sums of money to terrorist groups all over the world. Theyd rather send people to bomb us in Paris or to kill some of you in America than to feed their people.

Theyd rather allocate money to renegade criminal groups that want to wreak havoc in Europe or in the United States than feed their people. And everyone in Iran knows that. Thats why theyre not only religious maniacs, theyre just plain, common criminals. Theyre crooks, thieves. When people say mullahs, they have this religious concept. To me, the mullahs are like the people who ran the mafia, the people I prosecuted who ran the mafia and extorted their people, extorted the Italian American people, and subjugated them, except this is on a much bigger scale. And the Ayatollah is like the head of the mafia. Hes a very wealthy man, the Ayatollah. And I do question his religious sincerity. No man can be a man of god that is a mass murderer. Completely hypocritical. And then he asks people to sacrifice their life for the cause of tyranny. But does he sacrifice his life? Hes not the one going out there and doing the suicide bombings. Nor are the fat mullahs who are living wonderful lives off the misery of their own people. This has to be recognized. And its only going to be recognized with the advocacy of a group like the NCRI and MEK. Theyre the group that is the most courageous and the most honest about whats going on in Iran.

Experience has shown that dictatorship doesnt change on its own. The old saying, a leopard doesnt change its spots, is quite true. Particularly a dictator. And despite all of the concessions provided under the JCPOA, the Iranian regime didnt change one bit. In fact, it got worse. It continued its oppression of the Iranian people. It continued its march to becoming a nuclear power. And it continued to be the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. And since American has ceased to comply with that agreement, has cut it off, and has stopped sending them billions of dollars in cash, the countrys been under maximum pressure. And weve got to keep that pressure up to remove the ruling theocracy.

Regime change in Iran is within reach. Dont listen to the pessimists and dont listen to the Iranian apologists who are paid to say that. Its within reach. The same things are happening in Iran that have happened numerous times in other countries. When we wake up one morning and were surprised and we find out, oh my goodness, the Berlin Wall is coming downoh my goodness, the Soviet Union is no morePoland is becoming freeit happened over a long period of time. It happened with the same conditions were seeing now. But when it happened, it happened like that [snaps]. And thats whats going to happen here.

And thats the goal of the NCRI and thats the goal of Maryam Rajavi. Its very, very simple. The goal is a free Iran that will be a contributing nation to peace in the world, to a better world. This is the heritage of the Iranian people. This is one of the great civilizations that goes back to time immemorial. How much has the Persian civilization given to us? And how much more can it give to us if its allowed to be free? The goal of Maryam Rajavi and all of us here is not to impose anyone on the Iranian people. The goal is to see regime change.

There is a shadow government to handle the interim so we dont have the situation that we had in Iraq several years ago, so the government can continue and the people can start to prosper immediately. But within less than a year, the goal is to have free and fair elections, to establish a rule of law from day one, to make sure that women participate in the government to the same extent as men, and in society, and that all of you are free to practice your religion as you see fit, or not practice religion, and to immediately end the nuclear program and to make clear that Iran was to rejoin the community of civilized nation. That will be interim. And then the Iranian people will decide who do they want, what kind of constitution they want. Thats the goal of this organization and the millions of people that support it, and the people that are watching today.

Its all going to happen. Its all going to happen the way I say. Were going to wake up one morning and were going to be surprised that the regime fell. Its teetering right now. And when that happens, youre going to have your name etched in that great book of liberators. And the one whose name will be in the largest, boldest print will be Maryam Rajavi. Stand with Maryam Rajavi. Stand with Maryam Rajavi. Stand with Maryam Rajavi. Thank you.

Go here to read the rest:

Iran's Regime Tries to Spread Despair Among People With COVID-19, NCRI's Free Iran Global Summit Foiled This Remarks by Rudy Giuliani - NCRI -...

Op-Ed: Which Monuments Should Come Down And What Should Replace Them? – SFist

Posted on by

The growing recognition that monuments to white men who supported oppression have no place in our public spaces has been a long time coming. It took a new generation of activists aroused by the public execution of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter Movement to affect change. We've witnessed predominantly young protesters of every description fighting for justice and equality. The protesters have identified these public monuments as symbols of racial repression and took action by removing them.

I support the protesters' use of force in removing public installations which they identified as symbols of racial injustice. These racist tributes and narratives had been maintained at taxpayer expense for decades and longer. Yet, there has been no concerted effort by public officials in many jurisdictions to effect their removal.

The nation has been captivated by the scope and breadth of the George Floyd protests which dwarf all previous grassroots political movements. The collective judgment of these protesters matters, but some of their methods for being heard have been controversial, including their broad condemnation of historic monuments and an an array of historic persons. Though I believe the protesters have gotten it right for the most part, they wield a blunt instrument.

Not surprisingly, President Trump once again chimed in to condemn the removal of Confederate monuments while vilifying the protesters. He appears oblivious to the moral force of this protest movement, and thinks it galvanizes his base to threaten prosecution and long prison terms for the protesters, labeling them as Marxists, anarchists, and looters while defending the Confederacy and its leaders men who took up arms against this republic. Unfortunately, these views are held by far too many.

In my formative years, I recall my first visit to Washington, DC. I toured the Capitol building and the hall of statues, and I wondered why in addition to the heroes, the hall contained tributes to Confederate military and political leaders. Here in the halls of Congress, the defenders of slavery are enshrined. Why this mixed messaging? What did their presence say about how I'm viewed as an African American? I recall my unease.

Over time, the public has grown accustomed to these political relics and has become numb to the hypocrisy of the public display of tributes to men whose notoriety stems from rebellion, war, and the tyranny of the antebellum south. For many Americans, these symbols have always been troubling. If the protesters hadn't taken action and provoked a long-overdue reckoning, who would have taken the initiative and when?

I find Confederate war monuments to be particularly objectionable. They amount to a public apology for defending the union and waging war against slavery. Many Americans seem to have forgotten that the Confederates were traitors to the United States. Their act of secession led to 215,000 deaths on the battlefield and polarized the civilian population for generations.

Trump's statements supporting these Confederate tributes are all the more loathsome because he is once again sending a message to Americans that there were "good people on both sides" and that the "good people" who fought to defend the institution of slavery were somehow justified.

Despite Trumps hostile opposition, the multitudes of Black Lives Matter protesters reinforce the inescapable conclusion that it is morally wrong to permit monuments with racist connotations to remain as permanent fixtures in our civic landscape. This protest-driven campaign to cleanse our public venues of racist symbols has been questioned by others. This was inevitable because there isn't a consensus on what monuments warrant removal and which do not.

The Bay Area finds itself in the midst of this controversy. The justification for the removal by protestors of monuments celebrating Father Junipero Sera and President Ulysses Grant, as well as the defacement of a bust honoring Judge Donald McCollum, have been sources of division.

The statue commemorating Sera which had adorned the entrance to Mission Despite Father Seras documented history of forcing the Christian conversion of Native Americans in California and contributing to their enslavement, the Catholic church continues to support and defend his legacy.

The protesters toppling of the Sera monument along with one honoring President Ulysses Grant in Golden Gate Park was undeserved in the eyes of some. President Ulysses Grant was notoriously anti-Semitic and briefly owned a slave whom he later freed. He was also a Union general and played a pivotal role in the defeat of the Confederacy. After the departure of southern sympathizer Andrew Johnson, Grant assumed the presidency and deployed Union troops throughout the south to pacify southerners who were resisting emancipation and defying federal reforms. Federal policies included efforts to ensure the property rights of African Americans, the freedom of movement, and the right to attend school and hold public office. These policies became known as Reconstruction. The withdrawal of federal troops after President Grant left office brought about the end of Reconstruction and ushered in Jim Crow and legal segregation. Both Father Sera and President Grant are deeply flawed historical figures who legacies warrant reevaluation.

Passions in the Black community in Oakland were heightened when protesters defaced a bust honoring Judge Donald McCollum. Judge McCollum was one of the first Black superior court judges in California. A civil rights activist, leader of the local NAACP, and a defender of African Americans' civil rights. His bust is located on the plaza of the Elihu Harris State Building in Downtown Oakland. The protesters' misstep, in this case, may reveal an underlying conviction that those in authority perpetuated the system and all its failings without much research into their targets.

The destruction of politically motivated racist symbols is not censorship, and must not interfere with the responsibility of preserving important works of art that depict our nations racist and oppressive history towards Blacks, Native Americans, and others. We own this legacy and it should not be erased. I put the Washington High School murals in San Francisco in this category. The school's renowned murals were commissioned by the WPA during the Roosevelt administration. A number of scenes depict the horrific treatment of Blacks and others in graphic terms. These murals teach an important lesson and deserve preservation.

At one point in my career, work required that I drive extensively through the southern states. I traveled on roadways dedicated to Confederate military officers including Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, crossed bridges honoring secessionist Jefferson Davis and segregationist Senator John Stennis. Often when I would pull over in commercial areas, I would see the prominent display of Confederate battle flags, bumper stickers, and t-shirts with racist and anti-government messages.

It felt like the Confederacy was still alive and well. These images caused me to consider whether I belonged there, and I wondered how African Americans that live there handled being constantly surrounded by symbols of racial animus. I assume the chilling effect they produce is the point of it all.

Racial messaging like that changes the environment and influences the people who are exposed to it, white and Black. If the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law for all Americans, then public officials should be duty-bound to eradicate racist monuments on public property and to change the names of streets, highways, public schools, and other institutions that honor racist figures.

An important step forward, nationally, would be to replace the current $20 note featuring President Andrew Jackson with a $20 note honoring Harriet Tubman. Jackson was responsible for driving Native Americans off their ancestral lands and the wholesale destruction of their tribes and cultures. He was also an enthusiastic slave owner. Tubman was a 19th century African American patriot, a prominent abolitionist, an early feminist, and civil rights icon. The Harriet Tubman note, which had been scheduled for release, is not yet in circulation due to opposition by the Trump Administration.

Removing these symbols alone will not eliminate racism in this country. But it's instructive to see how the German government views all symbols of hate and celebrations of Nazis. They now acknowledge that the Holocaust would not have been possible without the participation and acquiescence of most Germans, and they know the negative impact that the exposure to racist symbols and propaganda have on attitude and behavior. Therefore the government has enacted laws that ban all symbols promoting anti-Semitism, fascism, Hitler, and the Nazi regime.

Germany is confronting the repercussions of Hitler's 10-year regime over 80 years ago. Here in the United States, we are attempting to combat the legacy of 400 years of colonization, slavery, human exploitation, and how that history contributed to police violence and discrimination in its many manifestations.

Will Black Lives Matter protests result in a new perspective on public installations and who we honor? I think they may. In the future, there must be careful consideration given to who is a hero worthy of public recognition and who is not. That decision should be made through a transparent process that is representative of our nation's diversity.

Previously: Op-Ed: Changing Dispatching Practices In Law Enforcement Can Save Lives

Elliott Jones is a community organizer, public speaker, & philanthropist. Originally from Oakland, he has been working to help forge cultural understanding as an advocate and activist from California to Florida and every between. He is the founder of the public interest organization Ensure Progress and is also the grandson of the legendary Dr. Maya Angelou. Elliott contributes thoughts to SFist about progress in the Bay Area.

Continued here:

Op-Ed: Which Monuments Should Come Down And What Should Replace Them? - SFist

Israelis at last finding their voice to protest Netanyahu – Arab News

Posted on by

For years, Israelis especially the liberal and left-leaning among them have been accused of being apathetic and leaving political activism to the more nationalistic and religious-minded. However, in light of their governments failure to prevent a second wave of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic with its devastating consequences, their prime minister being tried on corruption charges, and the dangerous and utterly irresponsible folly of the annexation idea, these elements in Israeli society are at last finding their voice again. There are now almost daily demonstrations in front of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus official residence, with people calling for his resignation, along with similar protests in other cities and towns.

It is hard to believe that Israels leader has not already admitted to himself that his time in office is up and the curtain will be coming down sooner rather than later. The only remaining issue is how much longer he will continue to drag Israel down the path of deepening divisions and political instability, while heading a paralyzed government at a time when the country urgently needs exactly the opposite kind of leadership. Israel needs a government that is on top of halting the pandemics progress, will embark on a massive economic recovery plan to deal with the devastating trail of destruction left in its wake, and will heal the schisms in society, many of which have been cynically exploited by Netanyahu in order to retain his position.

It is no longer possible to discern whether the governments decision-making machine is working for the good of the country or merely to delay, postpone indefinitely or eventually abandon Netanyahus trial altogether. It is almost inevitable, now that the trial judges have scheduled proceedings to resume in January and be held three days a week, that the minds of Netanyahu and his family all of whom are very much involved in Israeli politics will be overwhelmingly preoccupied with his struggle for acquittal.

Instead of uniting all the forces in the country to fight the coronavirus, Netanyahu, who despite being a very wealthy man always prefers others picking up the tab for his lavish lifestyle, opened a new front with Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit by asking the court to allow Michigan-based real estate magnate Spencer Partrich to support his legal team to the tune of 10 million shekels ($2.9 million) a request Mandelblit opposes. Add to this the Knessets recent approval of his request that it fund some of the costs of maintaining the familys private house in the upmarket coastal town of Caesaria, which would normally come from his own pocket under Israeli law, at a time when millions of Israelis are wrestling with debilitating economic hardships due to the pandemic, and the picture of a prime minister who is both shameless and detached from the daily realities of most of the people he was elected to serve becomes way too clear.

In the past, those who demonstrated in front of Netanyahus residency in Jerusalem and elsewhere tended to be identified as more left and liberal-leaning Israelis, who also happened to oppose the occupation and the oppression of the Palestinian people. But the increasing numbers of protesters show that a much wider cross-section of Israeli society has now become disillusioned with the prime minister.

The contrast between the ostentatious lifestyle of the Netanyahus, with their expectation that the public pay for it, and the current unprecedented level of unemployment, which is pushing people deeper into poverty as so many small businesses collapse and homes are in danger of being repossessed, has fueled peoples outrage and driven them to take to the streets. Restaurateurs, for example, have become the latest group to join the demonstrations, furious with a government that offers no clarity about how they should operate and that changes the rules almost daily, sometimes even hourly, causing immense financial harm.

There are now many signs of Netanyahus dwindling hold on Israeli politics. They chiefly relate to his corruption trial and mishandling of the pandemic, but his dismal track record on longer-term issues such as affordable housing or even preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability also indicate that he is failing miserably after more than a decade in power.

If the first phase of the spread of coronavirus was handled responsibly including closing the countrys borders early on, keeping most people under lockdown and quarantining those who were returning from abroad then the current second wave, which is having a far greater impact, can be mostly attributed to Netanyahus triumphalism and arrogance in the face of the virus. To enhance his standing in the midst of forming a coalition government, Netanyahu declared victory over the coronavirus and threw caution to the wind in rapidly allowing normal life to resume: A move that is now resulting in more than 1,000 infections a day, a severe uptick of those in a serious condition and in need of a ventilator, and a tragic increase in fatalities.

A much wider cross-section of Israeli society has now become disillusioned with the prime minister.

Yossi Mekelberg

Consequently, the prime ministers approval ratings are rapidly falling, and he has even found himself challenged by legislators from his own Likud party, who are questioning his handling of the pandemic. Furthermore, after many weeks of failure to do so, he has only very recently managed to appoint a coronavirus czar after the position was rejected by a number of high-profile candidates, who realized that they would not be given the necessary power to deal effectively with containing COVID-19, but instead were being set up as a scapegoat should things go wrong.

And now the water cannons are coming out. True to his undemocratic tendencies, early on in the pandemic Netanyahu successfully leaned on his coalition partners to grant the government emergency powers. These powers might also be used to pave the way for him to escape justice. We are already witnessing an increase in police brutality in dealing with the protesters a situation that may well deteriorate as Netanyahu reaches the end of his political life and drags the country down with him.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point-of-view

See the original post here:

Israelis at last finding their voice to protest Netanyahu - Arab News

"It’s the decent thing to do" – News – Bent County Democrat

Posted on by

Three patients of Pioneer Health Care Center in Rocky Ford who tested positive for COVID-19 (one test is awaiting confirmatory results) have died, Crowley / Otero Health Departments Director Rick Ritter told the Tribune-Democrat Friday. Ritter said the health department gives its condolences to their families.

"Any time this happens we are certainly sorry that they lost a loved one," Ritter said.

COVID-19 cases in Otero County totaled 36 as of Saturday, according to Colorado Public Health and Environment, although Ritter said in a news release that numbers reflected by the state were not up to date. In the same statement, Ritter confirmed that three coronavirus patients at Pioneer Health Care Center in Rocky Ford had died and at the nursing home two staff and a total of 13 patients tested positive for the novel coronavirus. Ritter noted that results of confirmatory tests for some patients were still awaiting results as of Saturday.

Following Gov. Jared Polis's executive order mandating mask use in indoor public facilities July 16, businesses and services have had to crack down on enforcing mask use. Although many businesses and public buildings have posted signs alerting prospective patrons to their mandated enforcement of mask use, others have posted notices that state they will not enforce mask use.

In some instances, the notices make questionable references to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the 4th and 5th Amendments, or other facets of the U.S. Constitution or U.S. law.

Thaxton's Market in Fowler, for example, posted a sign in their window that read, "Due to HIPPA and the 4th Amendment, we cannot legally ask you what your medical condition is."

The sign continued to state that store employees would assume anyone entering without a mask was exempted from the statewide mandate. The Tribune-Democrat called Thaxton's Market last week to inquire about the store policy, but it did not hear back in time for publication.

Arkansas Valley Lumber outside Rocky Ford stirred up controversy when a sign it had posted in its entrance made rounds across local social media groups. The sign declared Arkansas Valley Lumber was no longer a public company and would only accept business from "United States citizens that believe in their constitutional right of freedom from oppression."

A day later, Arkansas Valley Lumber apologized on its official Facebook page and clarified that it would not discriminate against anyone, although it maintained that it would not enforce the use of masks.

Ritter isn't sold on Thaxton's claims or those of others, however.

"There's a lot of information I'm just going to come out and say it disinformation out there," said Ritter.

Ritter noted the statewide mask order makes exemptions for people with health conditions that complicate their breathing, such as asthma or COPD.

But contrary to what some businesses are claiming, a store is not legally prevented from offering patrons masks, nor is a store prohibited from asking someone who claims to have a medical condition that prevents mask use what that condition is, according to attorney to Otero County Nathan Schultz.

"I've seen a lot of people saying they're not going to ask about masks due to HIPPA," said Schultz. "The Fourth Amendment, then one store that says they're not going to ask about masks because of the Fifth Amendment. HIPPA is designed to protect information from covered entities, like doctors and hospitals, from disseminating that information without a release. That has absolutely no bearing on a grocery store. The Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment, both, any time you're trying to claim you have constitutional protection, there has to be government action."

Schultz agreed it was possible that some business owners might have conflated HIPPA with the American Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability. But even the American Disabilities Act allows for what Schultz called reasonable inquiry if someone doesn't have an obvious disability.

"I think the stores still have the duty to ask someone to wear a mask," Schultz said. "If they're saying they don't cause of health reasons, you can ask what the health reason is because then the store needs to establish what reasonable accommodations they can make."

Schultz said allowing someone to not wear a mask would probably not be a reasonable accommodation. Instead, though, a store could implement curbside service in such an instance, Schultz suggested.

Schultz said seeing misinformation circulate on social media has been frustrating. Counter to more claims from those opposed to mask use saying the governor's mandate was unlawful or does not have the same effect as law, Gov. Polis's executive order carries the full weight of law, Schultz said.

"Earlier this week, the public health order 20-31 came out, also mandating masks. Public health orders are enforceable by local law enforcement under 25-1-506," said Schultz. "Those can be punished civilly, they can do it administratively where they can pull your business license, or they can do it criminally up to a first degree misdemeanor."

Otero County Sheriff Shawn Mobley said his office will not enforce the mask mandate. Mobley referenced his short staffed department and ongoing criminal investigations. Schultz said he thinks Mobley's decision is okay, but that he was angered by sheriffs from other counties who claimed Polis's law was unconstitutional or did not carry legal weight.

Bent County Sheriffs Office also said in a joint statement with Bent County Public Health that the sheriffs office there would not be enforcing the mask mandate, although they did not provide additional reasoning with their statement.

Otero County will try to utilize civil and administrative means to regulate the mask mandate as opposed to pursuing criminal charges, Schultz said, noting it doesn't do anyone any good to start jailing more people right now.

Another piece of disinformation Schultz wanted to address was that of masks versus the size of COVID-19 particles. Schultz made the distinction that the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is not airborne in the stirctest sense: The viruss primary mode of transmission from host to host is through respiratory particles in other words, spit.

"I'm still seeing a lot of misinformation about the cloth masks themselves," Schultz said. "A lot of people are pointing out micron sizes and all that. This virus has never been airborne, it's transferred through saliva droplets. So the cloth mask does nothing to protect the wearer, it's designed to protect the community from the wearer. So if everyone's wearing a mask, the saliva's less likely to spread to others.

In other words, posts on social media claiming that cloth masks dont stop COVID-19 from passing through them are missing the point, because COVID-19 travels primarily in much larger respiratory droplets that are stopped by a cloth face covering.

Health Director Rick Ritter stressed that many businesses have been compliant with the mask order and that the health department receives numerous calls daily from people looking to improve the safety of their establishments.

Ritter said hes seen people be dismissive of social distancing guidelines and mask use because they dont believe others are taking it seriously.

"To the people saying, 'Well nobody's doing it," that's absolutely wrong," said Ritter. "And that is disrespecting the businesses that are working hard to do what's right, to protect customers, employees, and this is not a hard thing to do, my gosh, we put on pants to cover our lower torso, we put on shirts, and that's not a violation of our constitutional rights.

"If I went out naked on the street, and you can print this, the police would be called. If I said, You can't make me put on pants, that's against my constitutional right to be naked, that wouldn't cut any ice. We're just covering our face and if somebody says, Well you put on pants for decency's sake, I say you put on a mask for decency's sake because you're protecting others.

"A mask is primarily worn to protect others, and that's what I'm saying. These cloth masks, if we all wear them like we're supposed to, it's a kindness to others, it's a consideration for others, and we're going to reduce risk."

Schultz added the health department is working around the clock to try to achieve the best outcome for the community.

Tribune-Democrat reporter Christian Burney can be reached by email at cburney@ljtdmail.com. Help support local journalism by subscribing to the La Junta Tribune-Democrat at lajuntatribunedemocrat.com/subscribenow.

See original here:

"It's the decent thing to do" - News - Bent County Democrat

Uncovering the Origins of Identity Politics – Heritage.org

Posted on by

The following is an excerpt from the introduction to The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free, a new book by Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow at The Heritage Foundations Allison Center for Foreign Policy andAngeles T. ArredondoE Pluribus Unumfellow, published by Encounter Books.

Identity politics is all around us. Whether you know it or not, we are all bathing in it. Some Americans have embraced it gladly, while others have simply become inured to it and no longer bat an eyelid. Many others, however, have begun to take notice, and to them something does not seem right.

If you are one of the latter, you raise an eyebrow when the principal at your daughters school repeats the incantation diversity is our strength! and you hear that some subjects, even math, are taught differently depending on a students race.

You think of OrwellWar Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery. But you understand why parents dont put up a fuss. Who wants to get on the wrong side of the principal by explaining to her that, in fact, we can observe in the laws of physics, and in the social sciences, that it is unity that forges strength? Who wants to tell her that two plus two always equals four no matter what your race is?

Likewise, at the office, when the head of human resources asks you to place a sign on your desk that reads, Im an ally! you stifle the urge to wisecrack, Why? Are we at war? Its the head of human resources, after all.

Again, you understand why so many of your colleagues put the darn sign on their desk, and you refrain from asking about rumors that another session is afoot to uncover employees subconscious bias.

>>> VIRTUAL EVENT: The Plot To Change America: How Identity Politics Divides America

Back at home, when the talking head on TV spends the first 10 minutes of airtime discussing all the identity groups that the newly elected dogcatcher belongs to, you want to snap back, Who cares? Can she catch strays?

Only crazy people talk to the TV, however. But you do talk back when the next news item is about a father who has lost custody of his 7-year-old son because he disagrees with his estranged wife, who wants the boy to transition into a girl.

Later that evening, when your own son, who is applying to college, announces he will identify as Hispanic because your mothers father was born in Monterrey, your first reaction is to tell him, But I never even met Grampa Ortiz.

On second thought, it might get Jimmy into Cornell, so you repress the unease you feel about gaming the system. You also feel relieved that, if hes no longer considered white, at least he wont be made to feel at fault for everything.

At the same time, it will sting your neighbor deeply when he finds out that his small company did not get the city contract. He couldnt produce a narrative of oppression, and someone else got the contract through a set-aside program.

His mothers father was born in Salerno, and after immigrating was repeatedly beat up by rough Irish kids in Boston. But that doesnt do your neighbor any good, since Italians are not one of the designated oppressed minorities.

Or say youre an immigrant from Perus port of Callao. You came to New York in the 1970s, settling in Queens with dreams of becoming American and one day having American children, the same as other Americans.

Soon after your arrival, however, you heard people on TV saying that you were now a third thing, a Hispanic, and you should be proud of belonging to this category. Joining the American mainstream was an unattainable goal, said these loud people, and you shouldnt aspire to it, anyway. America is a racist place, they went on, and if you wanted to have a measure of success, you had to join this massive new ethnic collective.

All this disturbed you somehow, even if you could not articulate why. Decades later, it dawns on you that you had been enlisted into a struggle to overturn the very country and system that had attracted you to emigrate in the first place, and you are not happy about this.

In all these small and large ways, identity politics has become the operating system of our national hardware. As with war, even if you are not interested in it, identity politics is interested in you.

But what is identity politics, anyway? In a Twitter exchange on this question with Vox Media reporter Jane Coaston last year, I took a stab at defining the term:

I mean the deliberate creation of pan-ethnic and other identity groups; the idea that members of this panoply of collectives should get compensatory justice; the culture of victimhood all of this engenders.

Twitters character limits force us to cram complicated ideas into pithy epigrams, and in my tweet I tried to concisely present the main elements of what has become an ideology of our times. The purpose of this book is to explain how and why these elements came together, who was behind the ideologys rise, and what we can do about it.

Many theories have been put forward to explain how this ideology was suddenly sprung on America. They cover the gamut, from the demise of the family, to the erosion of social capital in many working-class neighborhoods, to the absence of a unifying enemy following Americas victory in the Cold War.

What follows in this book is a more-or-less-chronological account of the rise of identity politics, put in the context of the doctrines and philosophies that fed into it, and discussion of its impact on the American system and the threat it poses to the liberties that sustain the American way of life.

We have identity politics today because our government has created ethnic and sexual categories whose members have been instilled with resentments against the country and its system and given real financial benefits for nursing their grievances. Insisting on group grievances thereby perpetuates the identity groups. If we stop this vicious cycle, we may be able to free ourselves from the grip of identity politics.

The book traces the origins of identity politics to the late 1960s and 1970s, when the white establishment panicked over the black riots then tearing up parts of northern cities.

This panic led to two main outcomes. First, members of the establishment offered temporary racial benefits to pacify Northern blacks, who had seen fewer advances than their Southern counterparts during the civil rights era.

Second, they accepted the assertion by leftist activists claiming to mediate on behalf of other groups that there was an analogy to be made between the suffering of blacks and the experiences of Americans of Mexican, Chinese, Puerto Rican, Japanese, Filipino, and other descents. This analogy, which was also extended to women as a group, was drawn over and over.

It was, of course, dishonest and deceitful: The experience of black Americans was in fact unique. Nevertheless, this way of thinking led in time to such absurdities as immigrants fresh off the boat receiving compensatory justice for the real and imagined suffering of their ancestors.

Racial preferences also never went away, but more than half a century later have become a fixture of American life, and keep being expanded.

As this book further demonstrates, activists of those earlier decades sought to move the country away from its limited-government traditions inherited from the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment toward the centralized state planning drawn from the Continental Kantian, Hegelian, and Marxian worldviews.

Stated plainly, my goal is to change how the nation thinks about identity politics and identity groups.

We do not have to accept these categories, the discourses of privilege and victimhood, or politically loaded (and recent) terms such as minorities, diversity, and persons of color. Rather, I seek to snap the country out of its identity trance by exposing the actors, their actions, how they came up with these terms, and the theories that led us to this juncture.

The identity collectives have done nothing to alleviate the very real racial discrimination and social injustice that continues to exist in Americanor were they intended to do sobut have only exacerbated them.

Read the rest here:

Uncovering the Origins of Identity Politics - Heritage.org

Artist Petrit Halilaj Has Pulled Out of the Belgrade Biennial After Its Organizers Refused to Recognize His Nationality – artnet News

Posted on by

The artist Petrit Halilaj has withdrawn from the Belgrade Biennial after the organizers of the exhibition dithered over how to present his nationality in accompanying materials.

Halilaj is from Kosovo, and the biennial is organized and hosted by the Cultural Centre of Belgrade in Serbia, a country that does not recognize Kosovo as an independent state. He pulled out of the show after he was unable to agree with the organizers about how his country of origin would be named in the list of participating artists.

Halilaj, who is based in Berlin, has written an open letter detailing his experience with the exhibition, which is officially called the 58th October Salon: Belgrade Biennial.

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, and there is a fraught history between the two nations. During the Kosovo War of 199899, fought between the two nations,Halilaj himself was displaced and spent more than two years living in refugee camps. In his letter, Halilaj recalls how his and his familys passports were destroyed, and refers to the conflict as a genocide.

When I received the invitation to the Belgrade Biennial I was internally conflicted, but I also saw it as an opportunity to create a bridge, to open up a dialogue and to explore new paths of reconciliation through art, Halilaj writes.

Curated by Ilaria Marotta and Andrea Baccin, this iteration was called The Dreamers, and Halilaj had planned to show a video called Shkrepetima (Flash of Light) resulting from a theater performance he staged in his home city of Runik in Kosovo, inside the ruins of the citys House of Culture, which was destroyed during the conflict.

Organizers first omitted his country of origin from a document released in May. After he requested a correction, organizers introduced it with an asterisk, which Halilaj says reiterates the refusal of Serbia to recognize Kosovo as an independent country.

The asterisk does not even begin to repair a century of oppression and genocide that Serbia has inflicted on Kosovo and it is painful to witness in the context of an art institution that may have a different understanding of the issue, Halilaj writes.

Later, the institution ended up removing all mentions of the participating artists countries of origin, but Halilaj withdrew anyway out of fear that his work, which grapples with the plight of Kosovos multiethnic society, risked being miscommunicated and misinterpreted, or even politically instrumentalized.

The biennial is slated to open on October 16. Contacted by Artnet News, a spokesperson for the Cultural Center of Belgrade explained that as a public institution, it was obliged to follow Serbias official policy on Kosovo.

As you know the official policy of the Republic of Serbia doesnt recognize Kosovo as [an] independent country, so we as [a] public institution could not write [it] differently, the spokesperson said.

From the beginning of this unpleasant situation for Petrit Halilaj we were open for dialogue with the artist, the shows organizers said in a statement, adding that they hope he changes his mind and rejoins the exhibition.

They declined to elaborate on how they would deal with artists from Kosovo in the future.

Following Halilajs withdrawal, the organizers removed all cities and countries from the list of participating artists, which Halilaj says he hopes will be the biennials policy for future editions.

Read Halilajs open letter in full below.

GIVE US BACK OUR STARS

Petrit Halilajs withdrawal from The Dreamers, 58th Salon Belgrade Biennial

Open letter

In 2019 I was invited by Ilaria Marotta and Andrea Baccin to take part in the 58th Salon Belgrade Biennial, titled The Dreamers, organized and hosted by the Cultural Centre of Belgrade (KCB) and opening in October 2020. I was excited to collaborate with them and to travel to Belgrade for the first time as a Kosovar artist. I would exhibit the video resulting from Shkreptima, a theatre performance staged in Runik (the city where I grew up in Kosovo and the site of one of the earliest Neolithic settlements in the region) among the ruins of the Runiks House of Culturea symbol of the local multiethnic identity that has been closed down, emptied out and abandoned when the political situation with Serbia deteriorated in 1990s. When we started the project, the House of Culture was in a state of extreme abandonment and deterioration; trash had also been dumped there for years. We created a community of more than 80 people and cleaned up the space to give it back its life and cultural voice in Runik. Shkreptima is dedicated to the dreams of the citizens in Runik and it seemed to resonate with the aim of The Dreamers.

As many may know, Serbia does not recognize Kosovo as an independent country yet. After having silenced Kosovos cultural expression and cut education, in 19981999 Serbia undertook an armed invasion in Kosovo and violently repressed the Kosovar Albanian community which I am part of. This oppression has been referred to as a genocide, and it has urged other countries to take a side; it still does it today, when Kosovos unilateral Declaration of Independence (2008) is partly met with encouragement, partly neglected. During all these years, Serbia has officially treated the repression of Kosovo as if it were a matter of fiction. As if it never happened.

It did happen. In 19981999, I was one of the many people forced to live as a refugee and in camps for over two years after our houses had been burned to the ground. I consider myself lucky to have survived. My passport and that of all my family members were destroyed in front of us and we were suddenly neglected both our freedom of movement and our identity. So when I received the invitation to the Belgrade Biennial I was internally conflicted, but I also saw it as an opportunity to create a bridge, to open up a dialogue and to explore new paths of reconciliation through art. I wanted to overcome the dichotomy between us and them, between good and evil, to finally open up a shared space of discussion instead of broadening a division that has already forged so much hatred. I had the optimistic expectation that an art institution would be a space capable to represent a plurality of identities, eventually even taking a stand beyond the official politics around my country of origin, by just calling it by its name: Kosovo. The concept of The Dreamers, as well as the curators intention to transcend national divisions with this project supported my hope. Unfortunately I was confronted with a radically different reality.

With this letter I want to leave a trace of what I experienced in the past months, and what led to my withdrawal in June. This is my side of the story, of course, and I know that there are other viewpoints that should also be taken into account. On my side, I am making this public because a silent withdrawal would add another layer of impotence to the silencing I have experienced during this process, to the silencing and erasing of memories and experiences that runs through history. Instead, I hope to generate some discussion on the limits of political agency in government-funded art institutions located in countries that are still pursuing nationalistic and oppressive politics; on the potential of dreaming at all through art practices when the exhibition space becomes a frame that outlines the limits of the artists identity, and therefore of the dream itself; and more broadly, on the current political situation between Serbia and Kosovo.

The story begins in the second half of May, with the publication of the artists list.

Screenshot of KCB website, May 25th, 2020.

When the artist list of The Dreamers was made public, Ilaria Marotta noticed that my nationality, Kosovo, had been omitted from KCBs public communication. In the text, each artist was listed along with information regarding the year of birth, birthplace and country, as well as current living and working location. In my case, the name of the country was left blank after the comma, whichgiven the historic and current geopolitical contextI instinctively interpreted as an intentional omission of information. This omission had been decided by KCB independently from Ilaria and Andrea, with no previous notice, probably in the hope that no one would spot it or make a big deal about it.

As an artist, one imagines to be invited not because of nationality or place of birth, but rather for the ideas one aims to spread. This is why I would have agreed with this omission only if all the artists countries would have been omitted from the beginning, for example as a statement to explicitly transcend nation-state divides and to address their questionable relevance within an art project. On the contrary, like this, the omission of Kosovo from KCBs website acquired a much broader meaning and could only be read through the lenses of a wider and systematic political silencing. In my dream world, I wish that people could move freely with no exception beyond geographical boundaries and cultural barriers, as I like to imagine birds do. But we are still far, very far, from anything close to the realization of this dream and I believe such omissions shouldnt be left unnoticed, they have a political relevance that goes beyond my own experience, and speak of programmatic political and ideological interventions performed behind the scenes of art institutions.

This is not the first time that I have been invited to exhibit in a country that does not recognize Kosovos independence, but it is the first time that I feel the need to withdraw my work. My most recent project at the Palacio de Cristal, Museo Reina Sofa in Madrid, Spain, is also in a state-funded institution in a country that does not recognize Kosovo. However, in this case Kosovo appears. And even in the city of Belgrade, there are art spaces that write the name of Kosovo when a Kosovar artist is invited to exhibit their work.

I was aware that this omission did not respond to the curators direct will. I also understand that KCB may be actually composed of people with radically different political opinions, and that not all of them would agree with this state policy. But when do we have any agency? And if not, at what cost? For what cause? I discussed this with the curators to see this omission as an opportunity to open up a constructive dialogue around the issue of geopolitical recognition of countries that are still neglected zones on a global scale. The aim of The Dreamers is in fact to investigate the complexity of the current times, questioning not only the misleading nature of the real, but the space occupied by dreams, intended as the metaphorical embodiment of a space of freedom, which is able to challenge the certainty of the real world, of acquired knowledge and of our own beliefs. Accepting the omission of Kosovo, however, would have been a powerless surrender rather than the hopeful construction of a space of freedom. In the act of agreeing to this omission (which would have also meant to come to terms with being treated differently), I saw an indirect acceptance of the structural lack of free political opinion or agency in this art institution, which for me was in direct contrast with the initial aim of the show.

After my request to include Kosovo, KCB replied first by assuring that it had been a typo, then modifying it several times until adding Kosovo with an asterisk (*Kosovo.)

On KCBs website, the asterisk in *Kosovo seemed to be linked to the footnote In 2018, Board of the 57th October Salon made a decision to add the subtitle Belgrade Biennale to the name October Salon in the future. As an apparently harmless sign, it gives the impression of really being a typo; of having been wrongly slipped into the text and linked to something unrelated. It could have easily gone unnoticed.

Screenshot of KCB website, June 8th, 2020.

But the asterisk in *Kosovo is charged with strong political implications that were disguised on the website. * is the result of a 2012 agreement to allow Kosovo to represent its institutions without the authority of the UN Mission (until then, Kosovo was written as Kosovo-UNMIK). This asterisk only enables representatives from Kosovo to be referenced in regional meetings and in agreements with a footnote declaring that This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence. This asterisk is a declaration of status-neutrality and it reiterates the refusal of Serbia to recognize Kosovo as an independent country. The asterisk does not even begin to repair a century of oppression and genocide that Serbia has inflicted on Kosovo and it is painful to witness in the context of an art institution that may have a different understanding of the issue.

During this process I learned that the cultural centre had been negotiating with the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the addition of Kosovo and the modification of the total number of participating countries. The time in between these modifications gave me the opportunity to think and to observe how unprepared we all were to face issues like these, but also to reflect upon and learn how to deal with them.

I want to believe that art has a transformative potential. This belief is also among the reasons why I devoted my life to it. But this experience begs the questions: What is the actual ability to dream of art institutions and what is the space they are willing to give artists to dream? And if artists are given a specific frame for their dreams, a frame that is outlined and monitored by the dominant power and politics, then how far can we go?

In an attempt to find a neutral solution and facing the impossibility of adding Kosovo, KCB modified the website again by deleting all the countries of all the artists participating, and leaving the cities only. They said this was as far as they could go.

Screenshot of KCB website, June 12th, 2020.

Nevertheless, I felt that a withdrawal of Shkreptima was necessary, and that an open letter could potentially be a better tool for discussion in a context where an artwork undergoes the risk of being miscommunicated and misinterpreted, or even politically instrumentalized beyond the power and intentions of the curators of The Dreamers or the direction of KCB.

Only after my withdrawal, KCB and the curators of this edition of the Belgrade Biennial decided to delete from the public communication all the names of the cities and countries involved, leaving only the artists year of birth. This sign left by my withdrawal has created an antecedent for the next edition, and I hope it will have a resonance beyond the regional context of Serbia and Kosovo.

Screenshot of KCB website, June 24th, 2020.

This letter is the result of weeks of exchanges, brainstormings and discussions with collaborators, colleagues, peers and friends, all of whom I am very grateful to. I am especially grateful to David Horvitz who will take part in the Belgrade Biennial and has proposed to modify his work Give Us Back Our Stars after my withdrawal. In this gesture, I see an important sign of solidarity and healing. One of those signs that give hope, and make one dream.

See original here:

Artist Petrit Halilaj Has Pulled Out of the Belgrade Biennial After Its Organizers Refused to Recognize His Nationality - artnet News

Animal Health Matters: Euthanasia When it’s time to say goodbye – AberdeenNews.com

Posted on by

Having cleaned up from the afternoons small chute job out in the country, it was time to settle into an office chair and look through the phone messages our secretary at the vet clinic had for me.

I dreaded returning the call at the top of the list. It was a long-time client whose dog Id examined a couple days ago. Buddy, their 13-year-old black Lab had been steadily but rapidly declining over the past week. Cataracts were clouding his vision, and arthritis made it a struggle to get up after lying down. Now Buddy had lost control of his bowels and urination. The writing was on the wall, and wed had a very sad and frank conversation about Buddys prospects. On the phone, Buddys owners confirmed my suspicions theyd made the decision to euthanize Buddy.

As a special favor, our vet tech and I went out to the family farm to perform the procedure. After the barbiturate had gone through Buddys bloodstream and his body fell limp, tears flowed from every one of the family members present. Their decision was an excruciating one to come to, but all knew it was the right thing to do.

The Veterinarians Oath mandates that veterinarians use their skills and knowledge to, among other duties, relieve animal suffering. We use preventive medicine, medical treatments and surgery to accomplish this for our patients, but at the very end of lifes road lies possibly our most important procedure: that of euthanasia.

The word euthanasia translates to good death. When animals face irresolvable pain and suffering, it is the one last merciful action that we as humans can grant them a good death. Its a procedure unique to veterinary medicine and the part of a veterinarians job that gives students the most apprehension about entering the profession.

In offering this relief to patients, veterinarians shoulder the responsibility of ensuring that euthanasia is truly a good death as peaceful and painless as possible. For companion animals we usually use heavy doses of barbiturate anesthetic to shut down the animals system. As far as we can tell, it is truly as peaceful as the animal going to sleep. For cattle and other large animals, barbiturates often arent options, since residues of that drug in the carcass make rendering impossible. Captive bolt and gunshot performed properly can be acceptable. Our veterinary association has an extensive set of guidelines regarding euthanasia of different species all of them provide for the animals immediate unconsciousness prior to death. Anything less is not a good death. The last thing we want is for an animal to experience even more pain as we attempt to put it out of its misery.

The veterinary logistics surrounding euthanasia are relatively straightforward compared with making the actual decision. For farm animals, some guidelines exist. For example, swine veterinarians recommend euthanizing a pig when there is no response to treatment over a two-day period or if there otherwise is no prospect for recovery. One could probably apply this to other food animals as well.

But in the case of a long-time family companion such as a dog or cat, strict guidelines dont exist. Sometimes the decision to euthanize is obvious: a catastrophic injury or rapid onset of a painful terminal illness. Most of the time, particularly with older pets, its much less clear. Ive had some owners put off the decision while the animals probably suffered longer than they should have. Others maybe were a bit quick to come to the decision. Its not a call I can make the family has to come to peace with it on their own time. I provide the best input I can mostly medical but sometimes philosophical. A veterinarian I know asks his clients to name three things the pet really enjoyed doing during their life. Maybe it was going out hunting the first day of pheasant season. Or jumping up in the pickup cab for a ride to town. Whatever that list is for that animal, the thought was, when theyre no longer able to do those things, it is time to consider euthanasia.

I dont know any veterinarian who doesnt dislike euthanizing animals, but I also dont know any who arent grateful they have that ability to relieve an animals suffering in that manner.

Russ Daly, DVM, is the Extension Veterinarian at South Dakota State University. He can be reached via e-mail at russell.daly@sdstate.eduor at 605-688-5171.

See original here:

Animal Health Matters: Euthanasia When it's time to say goodbye - AberdeenNews.com

Euthanasia referendum: The End of Life bill won’t fix problems but create them – Stuff.co.nz

Posted on by

OPINION: The question Id like to ask is this: does the End of Life Choice Act actually solve this issue? Or does it bring a whole wad of new problems instead?

In September we will be asked to vote by referendum on whether or not we thinkthe End of Life Choice Act is the right law to put in place for this purpose.

The truth is that we are not deciding on whether or not Kiwis should have the right to die with dignity, we are not voting on just a concept here.

We need to take a step back and realise that we are not voting on 'euthanasia',we are voting on the End of Life Choice Act, which if it is voted through, will be rolled out in New Zealand without any possibility of making any changes or adding any safeguards.

READ MORE:* Euthanasia referendum: Will you support the End of Life Choice Act?* Euthanasia referendum: The most important voices in this debate are the terminally ill* Euthanasia referendum: This is it - the End of Life bill will stand or fall exactly as it is

If we are going to vote on this Act, then surely it would be wise to know exactly what we are voting on. We need tobeaware of what this law would allow, not just gowith a gut feeling or voteemotively.

"Making a law based on emotions is well thought out and completely safe", said no-one ever.

It is clear the End of Life Choice Act is not comparable to other euthanasia laws around the world. The New Zealand document is actually less than half the length of the Victorian euthanasia law. Why?

To me, this begs the question -what is lacking in our proposed law? What safeguards do they have in Victoria that we wont have here in New Zealand?

Perhaps this is exactly why more than200 lawyers in New Zealand have banded together with Lawyers for Vulnerable New Zealanders to tell us that this law is too dangerous and puts too many people at risk.

Just twolawyers would be enough for me to consider what they have to say, over 200 would certainly convinces meI need to listen up.

Are people aware that a grandparent could receive a terminal diagnosis, decide that life-prolonging treatment will cost too much, not want their kids to miss out on inheritance and the family would find out when they are handed the death certificate?

Or worse yet, the grandparent could be pressured by their family to consider this in the first place.Not hard to imagine this scenario happening either, as our elder abuse stats are appalling in New Zealand.

The Act states that both doctors must simply 'do their best to detect any coercion'. This would not stack up in any other area of law, so why is this sufficient when it comes to a life and death decision?

Iain McGregor/Stuff

"We need to be aware of what this law would allow, not just go with a gut feeling or vote emotively."

If there are greater safeguards in place to protect our property and assets against coercion, why are we not putting even greater safeguards in place to protect someones life against coercion?

Are people also aware that the End of Life Choice Act has no 'cooling off period' before the prescription is written? An eligible patient could request euthanasia and be dead just three days later. There is no safeguard to ensure that a person has had adequate time to make sure this is what they truly want to pursue, and process any grief or trauma they might have received due to being given a terminal diagnosis.

I dont believe in making laws that have this much collateral at stake. I dont believe there is any dignity in a law that would allow for any misuse or abuse.

Until we have addressed some of the real issues in society, and until we have ensured that every single Kiwi has equal access to all of the options available, then a law like this is careless and dangerous.

The End of Life Choice Act does not fix any problems, it just creates more.

This reader report has been edited to remove objections to the proposed law which were incorrect about eligibility for assisted dying. The criteria for eligibility is explained here.

Read more:

Euthanasia referendum: The End of Life bill won't fix problems but create them - Stuff.co.nz

Two doctors suspected of getting paid to help Kyoto woman die – The Japan Times

Posted on by

KYOTO Two male doctors were arrested Thursday on suspicion of assisting a woman suffering from a terminal disease to die by giving her a lethal drug.

Yoshikazu Okubo, who operates a clinic in Natori, Miyagi Prefecture, and Naoki Yamamoto, a doctor in Tokyo, allegedly administered a sedative to the woman at her home in Kyoto in November last year with her consent, investigative sources said.

The woman, who had the progressive neurological disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis also known as Lou Gehrigs or motor neurone disease is believed to have wanted to die.

Okubo, 42, and Yamamoto, 43, were not her attending physicians and are suspected of helping her die for money, the sources said.

Okubos wife Miyo, a former House of Representatives lawmaker, 43, told reporters in Natori that her husband often engaged in part-time medical work.

The woman transferred over 1 million ($9,300) to Yamamotos bank account, according to the sources. There were signs that she had contacted Okubo via social networking services to request euthanasia.

The sources said the womans ALS had progressed, and while she could talk, she could hardly move her body.

ALS is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that causes gradual paralysis. Approximately 10,000 people are affected by the disease in Japan.

On the day of the incident, the woman had told her caretaker that acquaintances are coming, and invited the two doctors into her home.

They left about five to 10 minutes later, and the caretaker found the woman unconscious soon after. The woman was transported to a hospital where she died.

Read the original:

Two doctors suspected of getting paid to help Kyoto woman die - The Japan Times

French innovator raises 2.75m for growth and NPD – Innovation in Textiles

Posted on by

29th July 2020, Lyon, France

Clim8.

Clim8, the young innovative company from Lyon, France, has just completed a financing round that raised 2.75 million from Seventure Partners, Agileo Ventures and the Deveaux Group to accelerate its sales growth and develop new products.

The French company, founded in 2016, is a leader in the connected textiles market with its intelligent and patented thermal technologies. With more than 50% of its sales abroad, Clim8 already counts major premium outdoor sports equipment brands in Europe (Odlo, Ixon), South Korea (K2 Korea), Japan (TheNorthFace) and the United States (W.L. Gore, Burton). With this A Series, managed by the MAZARS Corporate Finance teams in Lyon, the company wishes to continue to strengthen its leadership position and conquer new markets.

Clim8 continues to think bigger with this new round of financing and reinforces its leadership in the e-textile market. These strategic partnerships with Seventure Partners, one of Europes leading innovation capital firms with a fund specializing in the sports economy (Sport and Performance Capital), the Deveaux Group, and Agileo Ventures, structure of financing and support for innovative companies in the specific fields of Sport & Entertainment, Technology and Science, aim to support the growing activity of the startup and to bring their respective expertise in the fields of innovation, deeptech and industrialization the company said in a statement.

This round of 2.75 million (excluding banking) merges three main objectives: Clim8 ambition to bring its technologies to new industries (industrial, defence) as well as to new international markets. Secondly, the company aspires to consolidate its Research and Development department with, among other things, the creation of the Clim8 Lab. This will notably give greater agility in the development of new products and prototyping and will push even further the scientific research around the different technologies manufactured. Finally, the start-up wishes to strengthen the team with new strategic collaborators to support its growth, Clim8 added.

With the current global health situation, everyones unity has made it possible to bring this project to its completion, promising great prospects for the company, as Florian Miguet, CEO of Clim8, explains: We are the only ones today to offer a breakthrough technology in active thermoregulation to generate comfort that adapts in real time to the user and the environment. We have developed a large IP portfolio and we have a team of specialists working with scientific, industrial and technology ecosystems. Clim8 was born in a hybrid environment of physiological research and knowledge of user needs. Since our beginning, premiums brands we partnered up with have appreciated and recognized our deep technical and scientific knowledge and trust us to engineer the thermal clothing of tomorrow.

With this fund raising, Clim8 brings together, beyond the means to finance its growth, international investors with expertise in deeptech and industrial innovation, two pillars of the companys future development, Clim8 concluded.

http://www.myclim8.com

Here is the original post:

French innovator raises 2.75m for growth and NPD - Innovation in Textiles

Turkey: Social media law’s passage raises censorship worries – STLtoday.com

Posted on by

In environments where people share their personal, daily lives like Instagram, I dont believe interference is right, Aslan said. But on channels like Twitter, where people can easily be misled, to be honest, I think regulation is the right thing to do.

But Tugrul Calis, 62, disagreed. An avid social media user, Calis said he wouldn't want to break the law.

So what do you do? You automatically self-censor. And thats the worst: A person not being able to freely share his or her thoughts, to censor ones self, Calis said

Cyber-rights activist, lawyer and academic Yaman Akdeniz warned: These measures will have a chilling effect on Turkish social media platform users and people will be scared to use these platforms because Turkish authorities will have access to the users data.

Rights groups and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights came out against the bill Tuesday ahead of the vote, with Amnesty International calling it draconian.

If passed, these amendments would significantly increase the governments powers to censor online content and prosecute social media users. This is a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression online and contravenes international human rights law and standards," Amnesty International's Andrew Gardner said.

Read the original:

Turkey: Social media law's passage raises censorship worries - STLtoday.com

I Cut The Big Five Tech Giants From My Life And It Was Hell – Gizmodo Australia

Posted on by

A couple of months ago, I set out to answer the question of whether its possible to avoid the tech giants. Over the course of five weeks, I blocked Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple one at a time, to find out how to live in the modern age without each one.

This article was originally published in 2019 and has been updated since its original publication.

To end my experiment, Im going to see if I can survive blocking all five at once.

Not only am I boycotting their products, a technologist named Dhruv Mehrotra designed a special network tool that prevents my devices from communicating with the tech giants servers, meaning that ads and analytics from Google wont work, Facebook cant track me across the internet, and websites hosted by Amazon Web Services, or AWS, hypothetically wont load.

I am using a Linux laptop made by a company named Purism and a Nokia feature phone on which I am relearning the lost art of T9 texting.

I dont think I could have done this cold turkey. I needed to wean myself off various services in the lead-up, like an alcoholic going through the 12 steps. The tech giants, while troubling in their accumulation of data, power, and societal control, do offer services that make our lives a hell of a lot easier.

Earlier in the experiment, for example, I realised I dont know how to get in touch with people without the tech giants. Google, Apple, and Facebook provide my rolling Rolodex.

So in preparation for the week, I export all my contacts from Google, which amounts to a shocking 8,000 people. I have also whittled down the over 1,500 contacts in my iPhone to 143 people for my Nokia, or the number of people I actually talk to on a regular basis, which is incredibly close to Dunbars number.

I wind up placing a lot of phone calls this week, because texting is so annoying on the Nokias numbers-based keyboard. I find people often pick up on the first ring out of concern; theyre not used to getting calls from me.

On the first day of the block, I drive to work in silence because my rented Ford Fusions SYNC entertainment system is powered by Microsoft. Background noise in general disappears this week because YouTube, Apple Music, and our Echo are all bannedas are Netflix, Spotify, and Hulu, because they rely on AWS and the Google Cloud to get their content to users.

The silence causes my mind to wander more than usual. Sometimes this leads to ideas for my half-finished zombie novel or inspires a new question for investigation. But more often than not, I dwell on things I need to do.

Many of these things are a lot more challenging as a result of the experiment, such as when I record an interview with Alex Goldman of the podcast Reply All about Facebook and its privacy problems.

I live in California, and Alex is in New York; we would normally use Skype, but thats owned by Microsoft, so instead we talk by phone and I record my end with a handheld Zoom recorder. That works fine, but when it comes time to send the 386 MB audio file to Alex, I realise I have no idea how to send a huge file over the internet.

My Gmail alternativesProtonMail and Riseuptell me the file is too large; they tap out at 25 MB. Google Drive and Dropbox arent options, Dropbox because its hosted by Amazons AWS and relies on Google for sign-in. Other file-sharing sites also rely on the tech giants for web hosting services.

Before resorting to putting the file on a thumb drive and dropping it in a IRL mailbox, I call up my tech freedom guru, Sean OBrien, who heads Yale Law Schools Privacy Lab. He also does marketing work for Purism, the company that makes my laptop. OBrien tries to avoid tech giants in favour of open source technologies, so I figure he might be able to help.

OBrien directs me first to Send.Firefox.com, an encrypted file-sharing service operated by Mozilla. But it uses the Google Cloud, so it wont load. OBrien then sends me to Share.Riseup.net, a file-sharing service from the same radical tech collective that is hosting my personal email, but it only works for files up to 50 MB.

OBriens last suggestion is Onionshare, a tool for sharing files privately via the dark web, i.e. the part of the web thats not crawled by Google and requires the Tor browser to get to. I know this one actually. My friend Micah Lee, a technologist for the Intercept, made it. Unfortunately, when I go to Onionshare.org to download it, the website wont load.

Hah, yes, emails Micah when I ask about it. Right now its hosted by AWS.

As I encountered at the beginning of this experiment, Amazons most profitable business isnt retail; its web hosting. Countless apps and websites rely on the digital infrastructure provided by AWS, and none of them are working for me this week.

Micah suggests I download it from Github, but thats owned by Microsoft. Thankfully, OBrien tells me I can download the Onionshare program directly from Micahs server via command line on my Linux computer. He has to walk me through it step-by-step, but it works. Im able to run Onionshare, drop my file into it, creating a temporary onion site; I send the URL for the onionsite to Alex so he can download it via the Tor browser. Once he downloads it, I tell Onionshare to stop sharing, which takes the onion site down, erasing the file from the web.

(In the end, Alex doesnt even wind up using my audio for Reply Alls year-end finale. Sigh.)

I realise thats a long story about sharing one file, but its a nice summation of what online tasks are like this week. There are workarounds for services offered by the tech giants, but they take extra research to find and are often more difficult to use. I wind up in strange parts of the internet, using Ask.com (formerly known as Ask Jeeves) as my search engine, for example, after I ixnay Google.com and realise DuckDuckGo is hosted by AWS.

But Ask.com is not necessarily a great replacement: its owned by IAC, the media and dating company behemoth. Ive just traded one huge corporation seeking to monetise my searches for another, less competent one.

Some strange things are delightful: I discover that my Nokia phone can play the radio, so when I go running, I listen to NPR instead of my usual go-tos: Spotify, a podcast, or an audiobook. Im planning a trip to South Africa, and wind up in charming conversations with the travel agents I have to call for help; its more costly and less efficient to book via a travel agency, but its the only option because travel-booking websites arent working for me.

Something not delightful is my Nokia 3310s camera; it takes terrible, dark photos. I have an old Canon point-and-shoot digital camera, but I find I dont take many photos this weekbecause without Facebook and Instagram, I dont have anywhere to share them.

Sometimes I just cant find a digital replacement. Venmo wont work without a smartphone, so I pay our babysitter in cash. I start using a physical calendar to keep track of my schedule. When it comes to getting around, Marble Maps is an option, but Im confused by the interface, so I stick to places I know, and buy a physical map as a back-up.

Its funny because Nokia used to have amazing navigation with Navtech, a technologist says to me one day when Im talking about how hard driving is without mapping apps, but then they sold themselves to Microsoft.

Fuck, I think, my Nokia 3310 might be made by Microsoft.

But it turns out, while Microsoft did buy Nokias mobile devices division for $US7.2 billion in 2014, it sold Nokias feature phone assets two years later for a painful write-down, $US350 million, to Foxconn (of Apple outsourcing fame) and to HMD Global, a Finnish firm helmed by a former Nokia executive. HMD Global now uses Nokias intellectual property, i.e. brand, to sell phones. Most Nokia phones are Android smartphones, but theres a line of classic phones, including the 3310, which run an operating system called FeatureOS made by Foxconn.

My Nokia 3310 is not a tech giant phone, but its certainly tech giant adjacent.

To find out why the HMD Global is still selling dumbphones, I call its Hong Kong-based chief product officer, Juho Sarvikas. Sarvikas tells me that the company thought the core market for classic phones would be in Asia and Africa, where smartphones are less prevalent, but he says the devices have done surprisingly well in America.

Digital well-being is a concrete area now, he says. When you want to go into detox mode or if you want to be less connected, we want to be the company that has the toolkit for you.

So these phones are the nicotine patch for smartphone addiction, I say.

He laughs, Ive never put it that way before, but yes.

I had assumed that the phones were for parents who wanted their kids to have phones sans a pipeline to social media and apps.

That too, says Sarvikas.

Many people I talk to about this experiment liken it to digital veganism. Digital vegans reject certain technology services as unethical; they discriminate about the products they use and the data they consume and share, because information is power, and increasingly a handful of companies seem to have it all.

When I meet a full-time practitioner of the lifestyle, Daniel Kahn Gillmor, a technologist at the ACLU, Im not totally surprised to discover hes an actual vegan. I am surprised by the lengths to which hes gone to avoid the tech giants: he doesnt have a mobile phone and prefers to pay for things with cash.

My main concern is people being able to lead autonomous healthy lives that they have control over, Gillmor tells me during a chat via Jitsi, an open-source video-conferencing service that will work on any web browser. Theres no proprietary app you have to download and it doesnt require you to create an account.

Gillmor hosts his own email and avoids most social media networks (he makes exceptions for Github and Sourceforge, because hes an open source developer who wants to share his code with others). He refers to joining social networks as being bait that lures other people into surveillance traps.

Gillmor thinks people will have better lives if they arent being data-mined and monetized by companies that increasingly control the flow of information.

I have the capacity to make this choice. I know a lot of people would like to sign off but cant for financial reasons or practical reasons, he tells me. I dont want to come across as chastising people who dont make this choice.

And there are definitely costs to the choice. How things are structured determines the decisions people can make socially, he says. Like you didnt get invited to a party [via Facebook] because you chose not to be part of a surveillance economy.

Gillmor teaches digital hygiene classes where he tries to get people to think about their privacy and security. He usually starts the class by asking people if they know when their phones are communicating with cell towers. Most people say, When I use it, but the answer is, anytime its on, he says.

He wants people to think about their own data trails but also when they are creating data trails for other people, such as when a person uploads their contacts to a technology servicesharing information with the service that those contacts might not want shared.

Once the data is out there, it can be misused in ways we dont expect, he says.

But he thinks its going to take more than actions by individuals. We need to think of this as a collective action problem similar to how we think about the environment, he says. Our society is structured so that a lot of people are trapped. If you have to fill out your timesheet with an app only available on iPhone or Android, you better have one of those to get paid.

Gillmor wants lawmakers to step in, but he also thinks it can be addressed technologically, by pushing for interoperable systems like we have for phone numbers and email. You can call anyone; you dont need to use the same phone carrier as them. And you can take your phone number to a different carrier if you want (thanks to lawmaker intervention).

When companies cant lock us into proprietary ecosystems, we have more freedom. But that means Facebook would have to let a Pinterest user RSVP for an event on its site. And Apple would need to let you Facetime an Android user.

No one wants to give the keys out when they have customer lock-in.

The Amazon block continues to be the most challenging one for me.

My friend Katie is in town from New York; we have plans to meet for dinner one night at a restaurant near my house, an event marked on my physical calendar. On the morning we are to meet, I get an email from her to my Riseup account with the subject line, What is happening.

Katie had been sending me messages for days via Signal, but I hadnt gotten them because Signal is hosted by AWS. When she didnt hear from me, she sent an ARE YOU GETTING MY TEXTS email to Gmail, and got my away message directing her to my Riseup account.

I tell her dinner is still a go, but its a reminder of the costs of leaving these services. I can opt out, but people might not realise Ive left, or might forget, even if they do know.

One day, I ask my husband, Trevor, who declined to do the block with me because he has a real job, what the hardest part of my experiment is for him. I never know if youre going to respond to my texts, he says.

What do you mean? I ask. What have I not responded to?

I sent you some messages on Signal, Trevor says, having forgotten I am off it.

The block provides constant conversation fodder, and I find myself in conversations more often because, at social gatherings, I dont have a smartphone to stare at.

An Ivy League professor tells me he regularly employs a Google blocker. I had to disable it when I paid my taxes because they have Google Analytics on the IRS website, he says. It was kind of horrifying.

People under 35 are intrigued (and sometimes jealous) of life without a smartphone; people over 35 just seem nostalgic.

One night, I run into Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle, who is delighted to hear about the block. Its hard to get away from technology, he says. A friend was just telling me about trying to get a TV that wasnt smart and didnt have a microphone. It was impossible. He wound up getting a 27-inch [computer] monitor.

Sometimes we make the choice to bring technology into our lives, but sometimes its forced upon us. Television makers have turned their products into surveillance machines that collect what we watch and what we dont watch and sometimes even what we say, and thats just how most TVs come now.

This week, I stop watching TV altogether because we dont have cable and internet TV isnt an option. I hadnt meant to make this experiment a rejection of all technologybut it happens despite my intentions.

Im most frustrated by this with my phone. I would love to be using a tech-giant free smartphone, but they arent really commercially available yet. If you want one, you need to be technically savvy and install a custom operating system on special phone models. That will hopefully change soon, with commercial offerings on the horizon from Eelo and Purism.

In the past, I would have assumed that idealistic projects like these were doomed, but there seems to be a heightened awareness these days of the dystopia created by the tech giants. Everywhere I look, I see criticism of the Frightful Five.

A writer I know pens an op-ed in the New York Times: Hate Amazon? Try living without it. (She didnt actually live without it.) A CNBC tech reporter reveals she gave up Facebook and Instagram for three months and that it made her a lot happier. A CBS reporter tries and fails to quit Google. A Vice writer gives all the giants up for a month (but not as rigorously as I did). The New York Times writes about apps tracking peoples locations with horrifying regularity and granularity.

The tech giants laid down all the basic infrastructure for our data to be trafficked. They got us to put our information into public profiles, to carry tracking devices in our pockets, and to download apps to those tracking devices that secretly siphon data from them.

Are Americas technology companies serving as instruments of freedom or instruments of control? asks a Californian politician.

Its in the air. The tech giants were long revered for making the world more connected, making information more accessible, and making commerce easier and cheaper. Now, suddenly, they are the targets of anger for assisting the spread of propaganda and misinformation, making us dangerously dependent on their services, and turning our personal information into the currency of a surveillance economy.

The world is flawed, and, fairly or not, the tech titans are increasingly being blamed.

A new book about surveillance capitalism by Harvard Business School professor Shoshana Zuboff argues that the extreme mining and manipulation of our data for profit is making an inescapable panopticon the driver of our economy.

Zuboffs publicist sent me an advance copy as an e-book, and Ive really been enjoying it, but I have to put it down this week because I cant read it on my Kindle. Instead, Im reading a physical bookHenry Thoreaus Walden, which I ordered from Barnes & Noble. It too is full of calls to re-immerse ourselves in the natural world and not get too caught up in the distractions of modern life.

But, because it was published in 1854, it warns people to get away from work and newspapers rather than smart devices and screens.

For ideas about what the government can do about all this, I call Lina Khan, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute who wrote a blockbuster paper on the need to regulate Amazons monopoly power. (At least its a blockbuster by academic standards.)

Khan is in New York doing an academic fellowship at Columbia University where she is working on more papers. Khan doesnt have a Prime account and avoids Gmail. Right before I call her, I see a tweet from a video producer at the Washington Post who got bombarded with baby ads after she had a stillborn delivery.

Please, Tech Companies, I implore you: If your algorithms are smart enough to realise that I was pregnant, or that Ive given birth, then surely they can be smart enough to realise that my baby died, and advertise to me accordingly or maybe, just maybe, not at all, she wrote in yet another reminder that privacy invasions have real harms.

I recount the story to Khan at the beginning of our call and say that this type of anger seems to be on the rise.

The tech companies own actions are prompting the tide to turn. It is a belated reckoning, but it seems to be a reckoning nonetheless, she says. Companies started monetizing user data far before most users even realised their data was valuable, let alone being collected by private actors. If users had been told that the price for access would be near-total surveillance, would they have agreed? Would companies have been forced to offer different business models?

Khan thinks law enforcers need to get involved to keep these companies from using anti-competitive tactics to dominate the business landscape, as public officials did in the 90s against Microsoft.

Several of the big tech firms have acquired rivals and inhibited competitors through predatory conduct, she says, a topic thats been in the news recently with the exposure of Facebook emails where CEO Mark Zuckerberg talks about cutting off then-viral video service Vines access to the Facebook social graph. They have engaged in practices that, a few decades ago, were widely considered monopolistic. We need investigations by the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, or state attorneys general.

Europe is on the case, its regulators fining Google and saying Facebook cant combine users data from Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram without their consent. But antitrust regulators in the U.S. have stayed away from these companies because their services are cheap or free, so theyre perceived as pro-consumer, which is ultimately what regulators want to encourage. But how does that work when the consumer is what the company is selling?

An uncomfortable idea I keep coming up against this week is that, if we want to get away from monopolies and surveillance economies, we might need to rethink the assumption that everything on the internet should be free.

So when I try to create a fourth folder in ProtonMail to organise my email and it tells me that I need to upgrade from a free to a premium account to do so, I decide to fork over 48 euros (about $75) for the year. In return, I get a 5 GB email account that doesnt have its contents scanned and monetized.

However, Im well aware that not everyone has $75 to spare for something that they can easily get for free, so if thats the way things go, the rich will have privacy online and the poor (and most vulnerable) will have their data exploited.

The previous week, my 1-year-old, Ellev, started saying that Alexa is scary and spooky, concepts she learned while trick-or-treating. Its not unreasonable; I can see how a disembodied voice thats always there and always listening would be disconcerting to a toddleror really any normal human being.

But this week, she keeps crying for Alexa, wanting her to play Baby shark and other music that is otherwise absent from our home. I miss Alexa, she says, and I feel terrible both for depriving her and for making her dependent on an AI at such a young age.

On the last day of the block, Trevor and I are flying to New York, and hes begging me to end the experiment early so we can use the iPad to keep Ellev happy. However, Im adamant about maintaining the blockade for the six-hour flight.

Im changing my seat to a different part of the plane, Trevor warns, kiddingly.

Trevor charges the iPad up in case my will falters. But I hold strong. We read books with Ellev, doodle on a magnetic drawing board, sing songs, and play for at least an hour with sticky, flexible Wizzle sticks that come in her Alaska Airlines snack pack. She sleeps for the last hour and a half of the flight, something she doesnt usually do if there is an iPad available.

That was Ellevs 26th flight. In the taxi after we land, Trevor turns to me and says, Thats the easiest flight weve ever had with her.

We get to our Airbnb in Brooklyn, which I booked months before the experiment. (It should technically be banned because Airbnb is hosted by AWS.) Theres a lock box on the outside of the apartment building that I open with a four-digit code. Inside is a key that gets us into the building and the same four-digit code opens a digital lock on the apartments door. I had written down the address and code on a piece of paper knowing I wouldnt be able to access the Airbnb website.

We get in with no problem. Were starving so head to a restaurant we passed in our taxi. Afterward, we need groceries, but Ellev is melting down, so I head to the Airbnb while Trevor goes to shop. I get into the building with the key, but once Ellev and I climb four flights of stairs to the apartment, I realise I dont have the piece of paper with the door code on itand I dont remember the code.

Ellev is crying and trying to turn the doorknob. I start to feel that desperate panic of an earlier age that nowadays accompanies a dying smartphone battery.

My laptop is inside the locked apartment. I use a password manager, stored on that laptop, to get into all my online accounts, so I couldnt get into Airbnb on another computer even if I wanted to toss in the towel on the blockade.

A masochistic part of my brain reminds me that I am in this mess because I used a site hosted by AWS. I could have just booked a normal hotel room via the phone, and then I would be picking up a new key card at this very moment. Technology creates the problems that technology solves, and vice versa.

While soothing Ellev, I try a bunch of different combinations on the lock based on my vague recollection of what the four numbers are. One of them works. As soon as I get inside, I plug my iPhone into the charger, relieved Ill resume using it the next day.

Critics of the big tech companies are often told, If you dont like the company, dont use its products. I did this experiment to find out if that is possible, and I found out that its notwith the exception of Apple.

These companies are unavoidable because they control internet infrastructure, online commerce, and information flows. Many of them specialize in tracking you around the web, whether you use their products or not. These companies started out selling books, offering search results, or showcasing college hotties, but they have expanded enormously and now touch almost every online interaction. These companies look a lot like modern monopolies.

Since the experiment ended, Ive resumed using the tech giants services, but I use them less. I deliberately seek out alternatives to do what I can, as a consumer, not to help them monopolize the market.

But the experiment went beyond that for me; it made me reexamine the role of tech in my life more widely. It broke me of that modern bad habit of swiping through my phone looking for a distraction rather than engaging with the people around me or seeking stimulation in my real world environment.

Read the original post:

I Cut The Big Five Tech Giants From My Life And It Was Hell - Gizmodo Australia

Letter to the Editor: Casinos are open but not churches? – Hanford Sentinel

Posted on by

Nevada Governor allows Gambling & Drinking at Nevada Casinos at 50% of capacity with Social distancing.

But the Nevada Governor restricted all Churches to only allow 50 people to attend Church services with social distancing while allowing larger groups to Gamble and drink at Casinos.

Is this fair and equal treatment or a Violation of our First Amendment Constitutional Rights?

I see it as a very serious violation of our First Amendment Constitutional Rights. Unfortunately the Liberal majority on the U.S. Supreme Court just RULED against the Calvary Chapel Church members challenging the 50 person limit for churches.

Below are quotes from two Supreme Court Justices who wrote the dissenting opinions.

The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion,Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent, but it says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack.

The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.

I support these dissenting opinions advocating to protect our First Amendment Constitutional Rights and hope you do too.

Russ Waymayer

Hanford

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Excerpt from:

Letter to the Editor: Casinos are open but not churches? - Hanford Sentinel

Tin soldiers are coming – The New Era – Sweet Home New Era

Posted on by

Editor:

Fifty years ago at Kent State University, the military opened fire on peaceful protestors.

The soldiers said, Disperse!

The students declined.

Both groups were standing on public property at an Ohio State school. Not a rock was thrown.

The students apparently believed that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would protect them.

Unfortunately, high-minded ideals and pleas for peace were no match for armed troops that were poorly trained in civil law. Rifle bullets pierced T-shirts on a sunny day in Ohio. Four students were shot to death, nine others wounded.

No one was charged with any crime.

In retrospect, I believe most people in America would now say that the event at Kent State was a terrible mistake; that the students were well within their constitutional rights; that the military was completely wrong to fire on unarmed protestors; that the students were making a righteous argument against a horrific and immoral war.

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,

Were finally on our own

This summer I hear the drumming,

Four dead in Ohio.

Goodness, how some of us have such terribly short memories.

The federal government has sent troops to Oregon, their apparent mission: to quell the protests. And what is it that the people are protesting this time?

Injustice. Racism. Police brutality.

And most recently, they are objecting to the arrival of federal troops who are tasked with suppressing the voices of the people who are expressing their disappointment with the government.

Once again, the citizens are coming forth under the banner of the First Amendment, begging the government for a redress of their grievances, and that same government is meeting their complaints with batons and tear gas, battlefield weaponry and troops whose training is in military tactics, not civil law.

What could go wrong?

More to the point, what will nearly inevitably go wrong?

I will make a ridiculously easy prediction. If the federal troops confine themselves to protecting federal property, things may eventually calm down. But if the Feds continue to send agents or troops onto the publicly-owned city streets of Portland, the local citizenry will become more and more incensed and the protests will grow in size.

The situation will become more inflamed, and eventually, a soldier will spray a line of protestors with bullets. Some will die, many more will be wounded.

No one will be charged with any crime.

Years from now, most Americans will look back and note that what happened in Portland was a terrible mistake; that the protestors were well within their constitutional rights; that the military was completely wrong to fire on unarmed protestors; that the citizens were making a righteous argument and pointing out a grievance against a government that they felt was failing them.

And so, the dead protestors will be martyred. But right now, if it was your sister who stepped in front of a Federal bullet, what would you feel? Better yet, what would you think?

What if you knew her

And found her dead on the ground?

How can you run when you know?

Im certain this message will not be well-received by many in our community, and thats just fine. Wad it up and burn it. Make it into a target and shoot it full of holes. Preach or screech against it on a street corner of your choosing. March in the streets. And be thankful that you can do all of these things because of the benevolent shield of the United States Constitution.

If you find yourself confused or angered by what Ive written, just go read the document. Id suggest starting with the First Amendment.

Finally, as the wailing begins, let me be unequivocal about a few things. Arson and looting are acts of riot. Taking to the streets to protest is not riot.

Protest is part of the process that moves America forward. It is just fine to disagree with the views of the protesters, but clearly, patriotic Americans must support the right of the people to protest.

John Marble

Crawfordsville

(With credit to Neil Young for the lyrics from his song, Ohio.)

See the original post here:

Tin soldiers are coming - The New Era - Sweet Home New Era