Liberal Groups Spend More Than $20 Million Attacking Trump, GOP on Coronavirus – Washington Free Beacon

Liberal groups have dropped more than $20 million into advertisements attacking President Donald Trump and Republicans on coronavirus, a sign that the pandemic will play a central role in November's presidential election.

Democrats have used the outbreak in recent weeks to campaign in battleground states that could determine the presidential election, includingPennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Liberal advocacy groups and super PACs are airing ads slamming the president as slow in responding to the pandemic.

The multimillion-dollar efforts are fueled by groups bankrolled by some of the party's top donors, including billionaires Donald Sussman and George Soros.Protect Our Care, a dark money group established toprotect the Affordable Care Act, is the latest to attack Trump's response to the outbreak. The group putfive figuresinto television and digital ad buys late last week in battleground states. The ads will continue to run throughout this week.

Protect Our Care is a project of the Sixteen Thirty Fund at Arabella Advisors, a dark money network that funneled more than a half-billion in secret cash from wealthy donors to liberal initiatives in 2018. Dozens of advocacy groups fall under the Sixteen Thirty Fund's umbrella, which provides its legal and tax-exempt status to groups that are not recognized as nonprofits by the IRS. Protect Our Care also set up a "Coronavirus War Room" Twitter account to counter Trump's response. The group did not respond to requests for comment.

While Protect Our Care attacks Trump over the pandemic, Tax March, another Sixteen Thirty Fund project, has targeted GOP lawmakers. The group poured $1.2 millioninto media buys against Republican senators David Perdue (Ga.), Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (Pa.), and Ron Johnson (Wis.) over their support for the 2017 tax bill that contained relief for some corporations that may benefit from the $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus.

Liberal super PACs have also spent millions attacking Trump. PACRONYM, a super PAC tied to the dark money nonprofit ACRONYM, has spent at least $5 million on coronavirus ads against the president. Tara McGowan, the group's founder, said it's up to Democratic groups to push anti-Trump messaging during the pandemic while presidential candidates remain positive. PACRONYM received $1 million from Sussman and $250,000 from Soros's Democracy PAC late last year.

Establishment players such as Priorities USA, the largest outside Democratic super PAC, have been some of the biggest spenders to date. Priorities has already poured more than $7.5 million hitting Trump over the coronavirus in pivotal battleground states. Fueled by $8 million from Sussman and $5 million from Soros this cycle, the group began running ads in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in March.

"Trump's response to the crisis has been nothing short of a failure," the group said in a press release announcing its initial coronavirus ads. "He continues to lie constantly and fail to act in the best interest of the country. It is imperative that voters know the truth about Trump's failures so they can continue to hold their government accountable in this time of crisis."

Priorities plans to spend at least $150 million leading up to the November elections.

American Bridge PAC, led by liberal operative David Brock, has spent $6.3 million on coronavirus media buys. The PAC has received $2 million in funding from Soros this year. Individuals with ties to the Democracy Alliance, a millionaire and billionaire donor club cofounded by Soros that helps set the progressive agenda, have also provided large donations to the group. The alliance mapped out a $275 million spending plan for the 2020 elections.

American Bridge recently announced that it is joining forces with Unite the Country PAC, the super PAC backing Joe Biden's candidacy. The groups hope to raise a combined $175 million as they collaborate on research, polling, and ad buys against Trump.

Unite the Country has already spent seven figures on coronavirus-related attack ads against Trump. The pro-Biden PAC's biggest donoris Silicon Valley billionaire and LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, who has stepped up as a major Democratic funder in recent years. Unite the Country's founders also separately established Future Majority, a D.C.-based dark money "strategy center" that plans to spend at least $60 million in the Midwest.

As outside liberal groups pour tens of millions of dollars into attack ads against Trump, outside Republican groups have been relatively absent from the airwaves.

America First, the super PAC supporting Trump's reelection, recently announced a $10 million ad buy in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin after allegedly facing frustration from White House personnel and Trump's campaign aides over the group's inactivity.

Joe Schoffstall is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he spent three years with the Media Research Center and was most recently with the Capitol City Project. He can be reached at Schoffstall@freebeacon.com. His Twitter handle is @JoeSchoffstall.

Continued here:

Liberal Groups Spend More Than $20 Million Attacking Trump, GOP on Coronavirus - Washington Free Beacon

From the Enterprise to the Discovery: The Decline and Fall of Utopian Technology and the Liberal – PopMatters

Star Trekand the Liberal Utopian Dream

When Gene Roddenberry first pitched Star Trek to NBC, he framed it as an epic voyage of rugged space pioneers akin to the westerns that then dominated the airwaves. What we got over the next three years was a deep exploration of two separate but linked phenomena: modern liberal politics and utopian technologies. By the former I don't mean what now passes for liberalism. Instead, it was a more robust sense of a future where, at least within the boundaries of the Federation, material need was largely overcome, people worked for pride or glory instead of money, and racism had disappeared from human cultures.

Android Face by bluebudgie (Pixabay License / Pixabay)

It was an uneasy balance of freedom and equality with a strong sense of individual human rights. Sure, Ensign Stiles (Paul Comi) might distrust the Romulans (and by extension the similar-looking Vulcans) in "Balance of Terror" (episode 1.14), but Captain Kirk (William Shatner) was quick to remind him that there was no room for bigotry on his bridge. There were hints that the Federation might even be a socialist paradise, though this was never entirely clear.

Yes, most of the female Star Fleet characters were secondary, but we should remember on Kirk's bridge there was a black woman (Nichelle Nichols as Nyota Uhura -- a first on network TV), an alien (Leonard Nimoy's Spock), a Japanese-American (George Takei's Hikaru Sulu), and later a Russian (Walter Koenig as Pavel Chekov). And there were a number of "strong female characters" as guest stars, right from the second pilot "Where No Man Has Gone Before", with Sally Kellerman playing Dr. Elizabeth Dehner, a heroic psychiatrist who saves the day.

William Shatner as James Kirk in Star Trek 1969 CBS Photo Archive/ IMDB)

Further, Star Trek doled out its liberal medicine in the candy-coated form of allegory: whether of the futility of racism (3.15 "Let That be Your Last Battlefield"), of the Vietnam War as part of a balance of power (2.19 "A Private Little War"), or of the dangers of letting computers make decisions for us (2.24 "The Ultimate Computer"). Most of these allegories with the notable exception of Roddenberry's own ham-fisted "The Omega Glory" could be swallowed without too much narrative pain, and without knowing the links to real political situations they hinted at.

Roddenberry's The Next Generation continued, for the most part, this utopian liberalism, featuring episodes where Cmdr. Riker (Jonathan Frakes) falls in love with Melinda Culea's Soren, a gender-fluid alien (5.17 "The Outcast"), where the crew faces peril on a planet ruled by women (1.14 "Angel One"), and where Cmdr. Data's (Brent Spiner) rights as an artificial person were defended ably by none other than Patrick Stewart's Jean-Luc Picard (2.9 "The Measure of a Man"). It was truly a "dignity culture", using sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning's categorization of how we react to personal offense (the others being honour and victim cultures).

If anything, Picard was too much of a stickler when defending the prime directive: unlike Kirk, he rarely tried to impose liberal values at the point of a phaser. For instance, it's hard to imagine him destroying the war-simulation computers that locked the planet Eminiar VII in a never-ending war with planet Vendikar as Kirk did in 1.23 "A Taste of Armageddon": Picard would have talked his way of out this one.

The foundation of Star Trek's liberal utopia was what I'll call utopian technology that allowed inter-planetary travel (warp drive), protection against alien threats (shields and phasers), and easy travel to a planet's surface and to other ships (the transporter). Next Generation added the choice of a wide variety of food, drink, and material objects (the replicator) along with unlimited leisure possibilities (the holodeck). Apparently no one abused their replicator privileges and went on drinking binges with endless pints of Romulan ale or, with the partial exception of Dwight Schultz's Lt. Barclay, became addicted to the sexual and power fantasies made possible by the holodeck. They had better things to do.

Science fiction stories offer five distinct levels of technology: primitive (that which we've long ago surpassed), contemporary, advanced (things we can realistically envision but don't have quite yet), utopian (things that make sense within a canon but we don't have any idea how to create), and magical (things that may seem "cool" on the surface but make no scientific sense). Our journey is one from Star Trek's utopian technology in the 1960s to a mixture of utopian and advanced technologies at the end of the millennium, finally to an embrace of magical technologies in the last decade, with notable exceptions. This journey parallels the decline and fall of inclusive liberal utopianism as we move from Kirk's Enterprise to Gabriel Lorca (Jason Isaacs) and Michael Burnham's (Sonequa Martin-Green) Star Trek: Discovery. The technology and liberalism of recent series such as Discovery, Picard, and Doctor Who have more in common with Harry Potter's childish wand-waving than Roddenberry's original techno-utopian dream.

Star Trek: The Next Generation - Armin Shimerman plays two Ferengi roles in "The Last Outpost" (IMDB)

Star Trek itself started to push back against its own utopianism starting in 1987, though more as parody than serious critique. In 1.5 "The Last Outpost" we meet the Ferengi, who Riker characterizes as "Yankee traders". At first portrayed as aggressive and greedy aliens, by the time of Deep Space Nine they became a parody of capitalism, especially whenever Quark (Armin Shimerman) quoted the hilarious Rules of Acquisition that could be all boiled down to one mantra: greed is good. Still, in this and others episodes Next Generation amped up the sense of cultural relativism, in keeping with the times. Not all alien species shared the Federation's post-capitalist egalitarianism. To drive this point home, the Ferengi were shocked that human women were allowed to wear clothes.

But Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager presented two more serious challenges to the original series' techno-utopianism. The first came from the Borg Collective, whose admittedly amazing technologies came at the expense of erasing any sense of individuality in the races they assimilated. In 2.16 "Q Who" and more dramatically in "The Best of Both Worlds" (3.26 and 4.1, 1989), we meet a species that absorbs not only the culture and knowledge of all races they come into contact with, but for whom individual rights are meaningless. Their members were little more than nodes on a vast digital network whose sole purpose is control. Their technological superiority to the Federation challenges the assumption that liberal societies produce the most sophisticated science.

The second challenge came from the Klingons 2.0, as re-envisaged by Next Generation. As I've said elsewhere, they were no longer loose analogues of Soviet-era Russians. Instead, they were space-faring Homeric heroes for whom honour and clan loyalties were supreme. Their technological sophistication may have been a bit below those of the Federation, but they were not unburdened by the cultural relativism of the non-interference directive, and were willing to fight their enemies with gusto if their honour was challenged.

Star Trek: Next Generation - Tony Todd (L) and Michael Dorn (R) as Klingons with honour in "Sins of the Father" (IMDB)

When we watch 3.17 "Sins of the Father" or 4.26 and 5.1 "Redemption Parts I & II", it's not a stretch to see parallels with family drama and Machiavellian politics seen in Shakespeare's histories such as Richard III, Henry V or Macbeth. They in effect told us that modern liberal societies lacked a sense of noble struggle so typical of warrior cultures. In "Redemption" the new emperor Gowron (Robert O'Reilly) challenges Worf's (Michael Dorn) insistence on Star Fleet protocol and thus the utopian liberalism of the Federation when he asks him to seek Picard's help to defeat the Duras clan:

Gowron: You come to me and demand the restoration of your family honour and now you hide behind human excuses? What are you, Worf? Do you tremble and quake with fear at the approach of combat, hoping to talk your way out of a fight like a human? Or do you hear the cry of the warrior calling you to battle, calling you to glory like a Klingon? ("Redemption")

It's clear that the Klingons represent a return to honour culture, to the idea that sovereign individuals have a duty to defend themselves according to a warrior code.

The golden age of sci-fi television was the 1990s, when one could watch everything from the paranormal police procedural The X-Files, the wacky reality hopping of Sliders, the grand space opera of Babylon 5, and the weirdness of Lexx and Farscape. One major theme connecting many of these series was the idea that state bureaucracies and official police forces could no longer be trusted or were entirely absent. As Deep Throat (Jerry Hardin) told Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) with his dying breath at the end of season 1 of The X-Files, "trust no one." Instead, we get a number of shows about a group of criminals and rogues trying to escape the long arm of the law.

It all starts with the BBC series Blake's 7 in 1978, where our heroes are seven British rebels on the run from a malevolent and authoritarian Federation. We see a much weirder band aboard the planet-destroying living ship over four seasons of the Canadian-German production Lexx. Its crew included an undead Brunnen-G assassin name Kai (played by London, Ontario's own Michael McManus), a human security guard named Stanley Tweedle (Brian Downey), a sex-starved half-human, half-lizard named Zev (Xenia Seeberg) and a horny robot head named 790 (Jeffrey Hirschfield ). They had stolen the Lexx, the most powerful weapon in the universe, from His Divine Shadow, and use it to go on many strange adventures.

Farscape - Ben Browder as John Chrichton (1999) (IMDB)

Better know is the Australian show Farscape (19992003), which starred Ben Browder as the pistol-packing astronaut John Crichton, who winds up on another living alien ship with another band of criminals. These include the semi-human former Peacekeeper Aeryn Sun (Claudia Black), who Crichton has an epic love affair with; Ka D'Argo (Anthony Simcoe), a Luxan warrior with strange facial features; the plant-woman Zhaan (Virginia Hey); and two characters played by puppets, the squid-like Pilot (voiced by Lani Tupu) and the arrogant Dominar Rygel XVI (voiced by Jonathan Hardy). For a season they're chased by a revenge-seeking Peacekeeper Captain named Crais (Tupi again), later by the half-lizard Scorpius (Wayne Pygram), who wants John's wormhole knowledge.

Both Lexx and Farscape feature super-powered ships created by tyrannical governments where our heroes are outsiders being persecuted by supposedly legitimate governments. There's no sense that space is a utopian final frontier where liberal dreams can be pursued.

Perhaps the most iconic show in this genre is Firefly (200203). In it Mal Reynolds (Nathan Fillion), an erstwhile Han Solo-style smuggler captain, leads a crew of eight civilians with various motivations, ranging from making enough money to survive to avoiding the clutches of the Alliance, which governs the central planets of two solar systems this space western takes place in. The world of Firefly is a direct parallel to America after the Civil War, where Union Blue and Confederate Grey are replaced by Alliance Purple and Independent Brown, with the rebels losing in both cases.

Though there are hints of an incipient intersectional feminism here the four female crew are all "strong female characters", with Zoe (Gina Torres) clearly dominating her husband Wash (Alan Tudyk, the pilot), and the unstable River Tam (Summer Glau) seeming to have psychic superpowers there is still a sense of balance of skills between crew members of diverse identities. But the world of Firely is no utopia: the technology is partly a return to the primitive world of horses and six-shooters, while our heroes spend more time escaping the law than exploring new frontiers.

Lastly, Andromeda (200005) deserves a brief mention as a sort of hybrid between the rogue ship and Star Trek motifs. The crew of the Andromeda are the typical misfits seen in other rogue ship series there's the shady smuggler captain Beka Valentine (Lisa Ryder), the Nietzschean warrior Tyr Anasazi (Keith Hamilton Cobb), the unstable techhead Seamus Harper (Gordon Michael Wolvett), and the catlike purple alien Trance Gemini (Laura Betram). But presiding over them all is Captain Dylan Hunt (Kevin Sorbo), who wants to use his powerful ship to re-establish the long-dead Systems Commonwealth, a stand-in for the Federation. Though it's widely agreed that Andromeda's writing fell apart after its second season, it presents an interesting combination of utopian and dystopian visions of the future.

Starting in 2003 and still in play is the turn in sci-fi television from exploring the final frontiers of outer space to the internal frontiers of genetics and digital networks. As for the former, the Canadian show Orphan Black (20132017) starred Tatiana Maslany as a series of clones created by the Dyad Institute. These clones, who are scattered across the world, slowly discover themselves over the first season or two, and agree to band together to discover who is out to kill them. The main character is the English punk Sarah, who witnesses the suicide of one of her clones, a cop named Beth, in a subway station. She decides to impersonate her.

There are numerous threats to the clones' well being: Beth's boyfriend Paul (Dylan Bruce), who is really a plant by Dyad; Dr. Aldous Leekie (Matt Frewer), the Neolutionist spokesman of Dyad; the evil clone Rachel, who works for Dyad; and the murderous Ukrainian clone Helena, who has been brainwashed by a religious cult into think that cloning is sacrilege. This show rarely strays from advanced technologies, and presents a model of civil society where anything goes as long as you have money and power. It also buys into the intersectional fantasy that most straight white men are corrupt or evil, but at least balances this with plenty of evil women.

On the other hand, Channel 4's Black Mirror (2011-now) presents a world about 15-minutes into the future where contemporary or advanced technologies create an episodic series of dystopias where one or more new devices ruin people's lives. Most episodes simply amplify the technologies we're already addicted to in our daily lives cell phones, computers, video games, social media, virtual reality to see their impact on the lives of the episode's characters. For example, in 1.3 "The Entire History of You", Liam Foxwell (Toby Kebbell) becomes obsessed with replaying audio-visual recordings made by the "Grains" implanted in his and his wife Fee's (Jodie Whitaker) heads, leading him to tracking down her infidelity with the slimy Jonas, and the fact that he may not be the father of their child. The episode imagines a society where everyone is always recording everything that happens around them, unable to forget past slights and painful experiences.

In 3.1 "Nosedive", the culture is addicted to a Yelp-like personal ratings app that determines your status and access to goods, which turns most citizens into superficial conformist clones. Those who refuse are socially cancelled, or in extreme cases imprisoned. Charlie Brooker's series confirms Michel Foucault's notion that a Panopticon may be an efficient method of surveillance, but it's crippling to the human spirit.

Finally, the best sci-fi series of the naughties, Battlestar Galatica (200309), combines these two themes. In the opening mini-series 12 human colonies named after zodiac signs are attacked by the long-absent Cyclons, sentient robots who have developed a way of replicating human beings almost perfectly (though they only make 12 models). Fleeing the devastation, a rag-tag fleet of civilian ships lead by what we assume is the last surviving battlestar, the Galactica, seeks out the 13th colony, Earth.

Commanded by the gruff Commander Adama (Edward James Olmos), this aircraft carrier in space survived by not being networked to the fleet, and thus avoiding a computer virus that allowed the Cylons to disable the other colonial warships. Packed full of hotshot pilots such as Adama's son Lee AKA Apollo (Jamie Bamber), Starbuck (re-envisioned from the 1978 series as female, played by Katee Sackoff), and Boomer (Grace Park), the colonials are on constant watch for the enemy within -- Cylons posing as humans, of which there are many.

Though there is an element of discovery, the weapons are contemporary (guns, missiles and nukes), and the politics dystopian and conspiratorial. It was the perfect series for post-9/11 America. The last vestiges of Adama and President Roslin's (Mary McDonnell) liberal sentiments are tested over and over, as in "Pegasus" when a second battlestar appears captained by the ruthless Commander Cain (Michelle Forbes). The crew of the Pegasus regularly torture Cylon prisoners for information, refusing to acknowledge them as sentient beings, as part of the savage war against the "toasters".

Somewhere around 2013 a relatively new political ideology swept across university campuses, leftist political parties, and the mainstream mass media. It has different names, though I'll call it "intersectionalism", or simply woke politics. It claims that Western societies are racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic patriarchies where people are divided into groups bitterly fighting for power, some of them oppressors, some of them oppressed. Individual identities, thoughts, and actions no longer matter. If you were in a victim group, you should be given wealth, status and power; if you were an oppressor, you should accept your collective guilt and atone for your group's past sins in some sort of quasi-religious ritual. Though some refer to it as "liberalism", it has no concern for traditional liberal values such as freedom of speech (see Twitter for evidence), as it cancels its enemies through social media hate campaigns and takes a supremacist rather than inclusive approach to sexual and racial equality.

Woke ideology has spread like a virus throughout sci-fi television since 2017, when Jodie Whitaker became the first female Doctor on BBC's long-running series Doctor Who, and the stories ramped up the social justice themes started in Peter Capaldi's run on the show. Rather than fun explorations of weird alien species and worlds powered by an inclusive romanticism, the show became a preachy series of moral lessons for recalcitrant toxic males.

Star Trek: Discovery - Sonequa Martin-Green as Michael Burnham (IMDB)

The social justice virus metastasized rapidly throughout the casting, scripts, and direction of Star Trek: Discovery that same year. For the first time a Trek series focused on a single character, Michael Burnham, a Mary Sue-style "strong black woman" who can do no wrong, despite staging a mutiny against her captain Philippa Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) and starting a war with the Klingons in the opening episode. She is eventually charged with her crimes, but is let off by Star Fleet to help them win the Klingon war she started. Burnham is continually praised by her crewmates, despite being arrogant and insufferable and making huge mistakes. She is an intersectional fantasy.

To make things worse, until Anson Mount's Captain Pike appears in season two, all the straight men on the show are either quickly killed off Admiral Anderson (Terry Serpico) in the opening battle, a mansplainer named Connolly (Sean Affleck) in the opening episode of season 2 or turn out to be villains Ash Tyler (Shazad Latif) is a surgically altered Klingon spy, while Captain Lorca (Jason Isaacs) is a violent neofascist refugee from the mirror universe. The Klingons 3.0 seen in the series are given a bizarre orc-like appearance whose mantra "Remain Klingon" is an admitted dig at President Trump.

This banal allegory will have all the staying power of acid-washed jeans. Gone is the canonical view of the Klingons as honour-bound warriors: they are now a thinly-veiled allegory for white nationalism. To make things worse, Burnham becomes the narcissistic center of the whole "red angel" time-travel plot in the second season, since the universe isn't big enough to contain her ego, though she saves it anyways.

Added to the magical politics of the show are magical technologies, devices that not only destroy the Star Trek canon, but make no narrative or scientific sense. Chief among these is the Tardigrade drive, which hooks up the ship's engines to a giant bug which allows it to instantaneously travel to anywhere in the known universe, powered by mushroom spores, moving through an inter-stellar network of fungus roots. Besides wrecking Star Trek continuity and any sense of exploring a distant frontier which is, after all, only a bug-jump away it turns out that CBS probably stole the idea of a spore drive from an indie video game developer named Anas Abdin, whose 2014 game Tardigrades contains not only characters suspiciously similar to Burnham, engineer Paul Stamets (Anthony Rapp), Dr. Hugh Cubler (Wilson Cruz), and Ensign Sylvia Tilly (Mary Wiseman), but an almost identical spore drive.

This idea of magical technology is repeated in the current (2020) series Star Trek Picard, from a similar production team headed by Alex Kurtzman. So far we've learned about androids made entirely of flesh that can leap like Superman through the air, a forensic machine that can scan a room for past events, a magical Borg gate that can transport its users anywhere in the galaxy, a set of brass knuckles that can repair machines with the power of imagination, and the fact that an entire artificial brain can be re-constituted from a single positron. Picard continues the post-millennial theme in popular culture of preferring magic to science, in keeping with intersectionalism's rejection of the biological basis of sex, the structural basis of grammar, the logical basis of philosophy, and the market basis of capitalist economics.

The writing in the show is once again sloppy Admiral Picard is somehow held responsible for the loss of millions of Romulans after their sun goes supernova, despite the vastness of the Romulan Empire and fleet, and the fact that the rescue fleet being built on Mars is destroyed by rebel sentient androids. Set against Picard's feeble and guilt-laden character are a series of strong women the super-powered android twins Dahj and Soshi (Isa Briones), the Star Fleet security chief Commodore Oh (Tamlyn Tomita), the ever-whining Raffi (Michelle Hurd), the sinister Romulan agent Narissa (Peyton List), the brilliant scientist Dr. Agnes Jurati (Alison Pill) only partly alleviated by Santiago Cabrera's suave and funny Captain Rios. Once again it's a rogue ship theme, this time with the mission of saving a single android. No final frontiers or inclusive liberalism here.

The Expanse (2015) - Steven Strait as Jim Holden (Photo by Syfy/Shane Mahood/Syfy - 2016 Syfy Media, LLC / IMDB)

To end on a positive note, the best sci-fi series of the last decade is The Expanse, like most of the superior post-1995 sci-fi series filmed in Canada. Though it does make most of the villains white males, it returns in part to Star Trek's inclusive liberalism on the bridge of the Rocinante, with a nice balance between the visionary captain James Holden (played with dignity by Steven Strait), the thuggish Amos Burton (Wes Chatham), the charismatic Martian pilot Alex Kamal (Cas Anvar), and the warm and sympathetic "Belter" Naomi Nagata (Dominique Tipper).

In it, our solar system is divided between a United Earth, the Mars Congressional Republic, and the rough-and-ready inhabitants of the asteroid belt and outer colonies, who form the Outer Planets Alliance (OPA). All are threatened by an alien "proto-molecule"m which takes over the Eros station and travels to Venus, where it creates a stargate that is launched toward Uranus. The science is realistic in terms of gravity creation, space travel, and weaponry, although the actions of the proto-molecule are mysterious. Though at heart a return to the rogue ship theme, there are hints of utopian dreams in the Martian attempt to terraform the planet, the OPA's attempt at independence, and the urge to explore new worlds now accessible through the alien-created stargate. The Expanse represents a firing of the retro-rockets on sci-fi television's crash into woke dystopias. Stay tuned for more.

This essay was originally presented at a science fiction club in London, Ontario, Canada.

Excerpt from:

From the Enterprise to the Discovery: The Decline and Fall of Utopian Technology and the Liberal - PopMatters

How the anti-gun lobby infiltrated the Liberal government – The Post Millennial

In Canada, there have been regular attempts to link Canadian gun organizations with the NRA, accusing legal gun owners of infiltrating government to form corrupt and unsafe firearms legislation. Yet, despite the allegations, tangible proof has been conspicuously absent from these claims. Until now. But its not from the group youd expect:

Canadas anti-gun lobby was recently caught engaging in this behavior.

In light of recent gun ban measures announced by Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair and firearms sales reaching an all-time high over societal fears of the COVID-19 virus, its a good time to revisit Canadas most infamous gun scandal in order reveal how backdoor dealings with an MP from the Liberal Party of Canada and the unethical actions of Canadas largest anti-gun lobby group continue to shape federal firearms legislation.

The Canadian Firearms Advisory Council (CFAC) advises the federal government on firearms policy. CFAC is supposed to represent gun owners and unlicensed civilians alike. Its a complex task, as there is a great deal of misinformation in the public sphere about firearms. For example, StatsCan shows gun ownership is way up, yet homicide is down. Government research proves Canadian gun owners are less likely to commit homicide, yet continue to be portrayed as a threat. The low homicide rate makes practical sense once you learn Canadian gun owners are screened daily by law enforcement.

The data has become a major problem for extreme activist group PolySeSouvient. The organization is starved for Canadian statistics to support their anti-gun position. Year after year, poly has been forced to rely on decades old high-profile shooting incidents and victim testimony in an attempt to manipulate public emotion due to Statscan releasing numbers which continually assert Canadian firearms ownership is extremely safe.

Senate committee hearings last year revealed Canada has 2.2 million licensed gun owners, yet over the previous decade, only 169 homicides involved a legal gun owner, leaving no substantial or plausible link between gun ownership and homicide. While any shooting event is certainly tragic, data from RCMP and StatsCan reveals that most of Canadas firearms problems stem from criminal gang violence, not gun ownership.

So, after years working with PolySeSouvient (Poly Remembers, made in memory of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre of 1989) and receiving sympathetic exposure from biased media outlets, it seemed as if Nathalie Provosts efforts finally hit pay dirt in 2017 when she was appointed as vice chair of CFAC by the Trudeau Liberals.

Provosts appointment was met with suspicion by many Canadians due to work shes done the anti-gun lobby since 2010. Shes also a shooting victim, of the aforementioned Polytechnique massacre in Montreal. CFAC appointees are required to remain impartial, recusing themselves from lobbyist activity while appointed.

Special treatment of vice-chair Provost was seen almost immediately after she strangely refused to learn existing Canadian firearms law by refusing to take the Canadians Firearms Safety course. She was personally excused from this practical measure by Canadas former Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, who claimed it was insensitive and inappropriate for her.

Unfortunately, the concerns surrounding Provosts appointment became justified after an ATIP request initiated by Tracey Wilson of the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights uncovered the infamous mandate letter in which Provost was identified as a Member and Spokesperson for her former anti-gun colleagues:

It seems Provost was eager to flex her new powers as vice-chair. The communication was sent to Ralph Goodale mere months after her appointment to CFAC, a direct violation of her mandate to refrain from lobbyist activity. Credit to Wilson here for predicting Provosts behavior and catching her almost immediately.

In the subsequent fallout, Provost was investigated by the federal lobbying commissioner. Despite public outrage, she managed to avoid disciplinary action due to a legal technicality: no evidence could be found that she was paid or compensated directly by Poly. Sound familiar?

Yet, its hard not to see a glaring conflict of interest here. Whether she was paid for her actions or not, the evidence is damning. Free lobbyist activity is still lobbyist activity, and the document clearly favours Polys organizational goals, not CFACs. No other group aside from Poly was consulted in the recommendation letter. It was neither submitted nor co-developed by CFAC. The letter came directly from PolySeSouvient with Provosts signature. Why was she still working with Poly nearly a year after being appointed to vice-chair?

Before we get to the meat of the letter, its important to note Provost later resigned from her position on CFAC in public outrage, claiming the liberals were too timid on assault-style guns, that her consultations were obviously useless. A revealing insight into Provosts mindset, corroborating the accusations of bias she faced during her investigation.

As for Ralph Goodale, due to his riding in Saskatchewan having many gun owners, he failed to win re-electiononly to be resurrected via an outrageous boutique hire by the Trudeau government.

Lets examine the key portion of Provosts mandate: Ive highlighted items in yellow which have already come into partial or full effect. Items in orange are currently being proposed through a rumored OIC.

Provosts public tantrum and subsequent resignation is baffling. A full six out of the eight items she requested were either partially imposed through RCMP bulletin or legislated via Bill C-71. Fast forward to 2020 with Justin Trudeaus proposed OIC gun confiscation, something he promised never to do, and it makes the final tally eight-out-of-eight, a perfect score for Provosts impartial recommendations.

Some gun owners may argue #7 came into effect in 1978 when full auto rifles were banned with bill C-51, however the slang term assault weapon is rhetoric used by anti-gun lobbyists which has no true meaning I am aware of. As such, my feelings are that imaginary objects cant be banned.

Regardless, this was a highly successful attempt (despite the unethicality) at lobbying our government. Canadas 2.2 million gun owners were completely ignored regarding this legislation, even after public consultation and senate committee hearings came back heavily against Bill C-71. The whole affair stinks to high heaven. It makes one wonder how often this corrupt dynamic occurs on other issues in the Canadian political landscape, yet slip through unnoticed.

Item number two of the mandate is a direct request to forbid marketing of the Canadian Firearms Safety Training. Its absurd. Why would an organization which claims to be devoted to public safety, want to discourage Canadians from taking safety training?

One hypothesis is that Canadas anti-gun lobby is trying to limit and impede the firearms licensing process. Canadas federally mandated safety courses are a prerequisite for licensing. By making it difficult to discover and enroll in safety courses, it could slow gun adoption rates. Also, citizens who take the CFSC and CRFSC are immediately made aware that Canada already has significant and severe gun control measures in place.

Gun owners are tested extensively on firearms legislation, becoming intimate with storage, transport, and usage laws through four separate examinationstwo written and two practical. After completion, graduates often realize terminology and discussions surrounding firearms in the media are frequently based on hyperbole.

Its hard to convince informed individuals more gun control is necessary once they learn their pistol is not only magazine limited, but federally registered and must be locked inside a secure case, with an additional trigger lock inside, and even then can only be used at a gun range which requires additional training and annual cost.

Unfortunately, It would seem the Liberal government may be trying to pre-emptively enforce this measure by closing the Canadian Firearms Program during the COVID Crisis, halting new firearms applications in Canada until further notice which means until Miramichi is re-opened, Canadians cant get a new gun license.

Mandate number seven from Provosts infamous letter references assault weapons designed for killing humans.

However, Canadas licensing process tests knowledge for every class of firearm available on the Canadian Market. Technical specifications, function and safe handling of assault weapons or military style semi-automatics is nowhere to be found in the course or testing because neither is a real classification of firearm.

Which brings us to today.

The language in Provosts letter is deliberately dishonest. Its an attempt to fool the general public, by using hyperbolic definitions. It seems Canadas anti-gun lobbyists are interested in creating a new firearms classification which is not based on technical specification, ballistic performance or function. By seeking a vague umbrella term worded to frighten the public, they are creating a generic label to ban any firearm they dislike in the future.

This approach was tried in New Zealand last year with disastrous results. Noncompliance is rampant. The new legislation criminalizes hundreds of thousands of gun owners with no violent history. Worse, the small percentage of gun owners who actually did choose to comply were rewarded with a massive data breach that gifted criminals with all their personal info and addresses exposing thousands to potential firearms theft. Its an absolute nightmare. New Zealand is in a far more dangerous position with respect to criminal firearms risk than a year ago. Lets not forget the shooter came from Australia, a country with similar gun laws in place.

Ultimately, what we have brewing here by Poly and the Liberals is a billion dollar solution to a manufactured problem, using sleazy back door channels to implement corrupt legislation with no debate, consultation or vote in the house of commons.

See the rest here:

How the anti-gun lobby infiltrated the Liberal government - The Post Millennial

Gantz and Netanyahu reportedly agree on annexing West Bank and liberal Zionists appeal to Pelosi – Mondoweiss

Ten days ago the big news from Israel was that Benny Gantz was abandoning his opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu amid the coronavirus emergency and they were moving to form a unity government of former rivals, with a strong and all-Jewish majority: Netanyahus rightwing bloc of 58 seats + 15 or so of Gantzs shattered centrist Blue White party.

Now the days pass and no Israeli government! Why not? The news from Israel is that Netanyahu is negotiating under a lot of pressure from his right wing to use the Trump window, which may be closing soon, to annex the West Bank; and Gantz has folded. The main stumbling block to a new government are judiciary issues touching on Netanyahus indictment.

It seems sadly we are inching closer an closer to a reality we have worked hard to prevent, Adina Vogel-Ayalon of J Street said today: what liberal Zionists call annexation, but the right calls sovereignty (and the left calls the one-state reality).

Nancy Pelosi needs to act now and call Benny Gantz to head off the possibility, Tal Shalev of Walla News told a J Street webinar.

Shalev that Netanyahu has had a brilliant month politically and Gantz has folded again and again on negotiations over annexation, so that today it seems his Blue-White partner Gabi Ashkenazi is the only real block to annexation. Shalev said the agreement-in-progress between Gantz and Netanyahu for a new governing coalition gives Netanyahu authority and power to move ahead with annexation whenever he wants while consulting with Gantz and consulting with the international community. Consultation means nothing, Shalev said. Gantz will say that there are some limitations, but it seems like thats more of a mask, and it seems that Gantz acceded to all Netanyahus demands on annexation.

Gantz tried to block annexation but failed repeatedly as Netanyahu said forget about it, Shalev said.

Gantzs political difficulty is that there is a solid (all-Jewish) majority in the Knesset for annexation, and Trump is for anything Israel wants to do, so the moment is now. Netanyahu has a strong hand because Gantz already gave up his political capital; coronavirus has made Netanyahu a popular emergency leader and; Netanyahu can always hold out for a fourth election in which his chances are even better, given the breakup of Gantzs Blue White party.

Nimrod Novik, a foreign policy veteran, told J Street that negotiations are changing by the minute, but the latest terms are for a three-month freeze till July 10, on annexation.

On top of that, Netanyahu got good news today when Amir Peretz of Labor, who commands three seats, said he will join the Netanyahu bloc for annexation. So Gantz has lost political capital on the supposed liberal-Zionist side to stop Netanyahu.

Labor is officially a dead party. Amir Peretz merged his three seats into Gantzs Blue-White party, reports Lahav Harkov.

Novik lamented that annexation has gone from the whims of a messianic minority a few years ago to being all but Israeli policy. Its unbelievable. And even limited annexation will end almost inevitably with us controlling the entire territory and the 2.6 million Palestinians.

Though Netanyahu hasnt annexed any territory in ten years, the pro-annexation forces are inside his Likud party, not just on the far right.

Trump-joy contributes to the moment, because Israelis have gotten the feeling that they are invincible and can do anything they want and there are no consequences, Shalev says. Benny Gantz was so afraid of this feeling that he never came out against annexation in the recent campaign, met with Trump on friendly terms, and never presented a strong alternative to annexation.

Liberal Zionists regard annexation as a disaster because it would officially end the two-state solution in the eyes of the world. Besides presenting Israel with a whole set of security challenges related to the loss of a puppet authority, the Palestinian Authority, in the West Bank, and the potential loss of Jordanian cooperation with Israel on Palestines eastern border and on the Haram-al-Sharif too, or Temple Mount in occupied Jerusalem.

Novik called on Democrats in the United States to act: Youd better act to deter this. Threaten Israel with the end of bipartisan support for Israel among Democrats and Republicans, by doing things we wont be able to accept, and maybe politicians will wake up.

Why doesnt Nancy Pelosi pick up the phone, call Benny Gantz? Shalev said, and tell him, This could be very, very dangerous. That would be more substantial pressure, with all my due respect to the liberal Zionists who are threatening Israel with consequences. Start communicating with Gantz as a real player.

While Novik said that thecost of annexation would be 52 billion shekels a year to Israel, or about $12 billion, four times the American security assistance. Let that sink in, Novik says.

Liberal Zionists are treating this as an emergency. The Israel Policy Forum board of directors implored Gabi Ashkenazi and Benny Gantz not to join a government that will annex territory in the West Bank. IPF writes as proud Zionists who have devoted our lives to supporting Israel.

We write to you as American Jewish communal leaders who are proudly Zionist, unquestionably pro-Israel, and who have devoted our lives to supporting the State of Israel and ensuring an ironclad relationship between Israel and Diaspora Jewry.

In the midst of this unprecedented health and financial crisis for Israel, we respectfully urge you not to use the need for unity in the face of emergency to create a different crisis for Israel by moving forward on unilateral annexation.

The IPF says that annexation would really wreck the relationship with American Jews (who have become more and more distant from the Jewish state):

Should annexation be advanced, the majority of American Jews who oppose such a policy will feel more alienated from Israel as a result. Just as we expect that our own government focus on the crisis at hand without using the fear and uncertainty felt by Americans to push through harmful and unrelated policies, we ask that the leaders of the Jewish state to which we are all so committed do the same.

The foreign policy establishment in the U.S. is also responding. Colin Kahl formerly of the Obama administration:

Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, theres growing concern that the right wing in Israel will push for annexation, perceiving a shrinking window to do so. Doing so would be profoundly unjust, costly, & dangerous. It would also jeopardize bipartisan US support for Israel.

Read more here:

Gantz and Netanyahu reportedly agree on annexing West Bank and liberal Zionists appeal to Pelosi - Mondoweiss

COVID-19 crisis: Opposition ready to work with Liberals on new wage-subsidy bill – National Post

OTTAWA MPs will have to get back to work in Ottawa, before employers will get the funds from a massive $71-billion wage subsidy program the Liberals announced last week, but opposition parties say theyre prepared to work with the government to get the bill through.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed Tuesday parliament would have to return and pass the bill before the program could be implemented.

That does require us to move forward on parliamentary legislation and thats what were talking about right now with parliamentarians, he said outside Rideau Cottage in Ottawa.

The proposed wage-subsidy program is broader than the measures in earlier legislation to deal with the COVID-19 crisis, which was passed on March 25.

That legislation was passed through a special sitting of Parliament with just a fraction of MPs present, in order to reduce the possible spread of the virus. The bill originally contained a number of provisions, including some that would have given the Liberals unlimited tax-and-spend powers until the end of 2021, that led to a standoff in Parliament and a marathon negotiating session.

The original wage subsidy program in the March bill only covered 10 per cent of an employees wages and there were several other restrictions. The new program, as proposed in the draft copy of the bill the National Post obtained, is much broader with a subsidy of up to 75 per cent.

While there is no agreed time for Parliament to return yet, all sides are negotiating with the aim to do so soon. Once an agreement is reached, Speaker Anthony Rota would have to give a minimum 48-hours notice to recall the House.

Liberal House leader Pablo Rodrguez provided a copy of the new bill to opposition parties Monday evening, hoping to deal with potential issues in advance.

We really did have problems the last time and so there was a lot of concern and skepticism

Conservative House leader Candice Bergen said they were concerned the new legislation would have similar issues to the previous bill, but so far it appears to do only what the government said it would.

We really did have problems the last time and so there was a lot of concern and skepticism, she said. It is more in the spirit of what the government said they were going to be doing.

As currently written, businesses will be able to claim the subsidy as long as they can demonstrate they have suffered at least a 30 per cent drop in revenue and will be able to measure that either against revenues from 2019 or from January and February of this year.

Bergen said the Conservative have some tweaks they want to make to the legislation, but generally they want to see the program up and running.

We want to get people the support that they need, she said. We want the money out to people as soon as possible.

NDP House leader Peter Julian said theyre also skeptical after the previous experience and want to ensure the bill is as advertised.

We are going through it with a fine-tooth comb, he said.

Passing the legislation through the House of Commons normal process would take more than a week. The government is aiming to pass the legislation with unanimous consent, which could be done in an afternoon. Bergen and Julian said all sides are now working out the details of that process.

Julian said the NDP wants to see the Canada Emergency Response Benefit improved, because it currently misses many people.

A third of jobless dont have access to the benefit, people really need those supports.

Julian said his party would prefer a universal benefit paid to everyone as some governments have done rather than the current benefit that only applies to certain people.

I am hearing from families that are really struggling to put food on the table and they need the kind of response that we have seen in other countries.

I dont think we are coming in there with an our way or the highway mentality

Julian said he is confident all parties can come to a resolution.

I see good faith on all sides and I am confident and optimistic that we will be able to resolve these issues.

The Conservatives have also made suggestions to improve the governments response to COVID-19, including a refund of GST businesses have collected in the last six months and reversing an increase to the federal carbon tax that came in this month.

Bergen said the Conservatives do see room for negotiation, but dont intend to impede the wage subsidy.

I dont think we are coming in there with an our way or the highway mentality.

But, she added, the Conservatives expect the same flexibility from the government in return.

If Parliament is to be recessed for an extended time frame Conservatives want some mechanism for holding the government to account, she said.

We also would like the opportunity on an ongoing basis to ask the ministers questions, to ask the prime minister questions.

Email: rtumilty@postmedia.com | Twitter:

Originally posted here:

COVID-19 crisis: Opposition ready to work with Liberals on new wage-subsidy bill - National Post

Liberal Zionists couldnt end the occupation because they feared equality more than Israeli right – Mondoweiss

It appears that Benny Gantz is going to fold right in with Benjamin Netanyahu to undertake annexation of the West Bank, or large portions thereof.

This is a huge blow to liberal Zionists who counted on Gantz as head of a centrist anti-Netanyahu party to move Israel away from the settlement project. Now hes doing the opposite. The insult was redoubled when Amir Peretz, the leader of the Labor Party, with all of three members of parliament, announced that he was joining forces with Gantz.

Bottom line, there is no political force in Israeli Jewish politics for ending the occupation. The only force inside Israel against occupation is the Joint List of Palestinian legislators; and theyre not allowed anywhere near government.

Yesterday on a J Street Zoom conference, two alarmed Israelis were imploring Democratic politicians to warn Israel that if it continues on this course, it will alienate the Democratic Party and undermine bipartisan consensus for Israel. In other words, Democrats should be threatening Israel with actual reductions of aid if Israel continues on this course.

But liberal Zionists never endorsed such threats over 25 years of Israeli expansion and feckless peace processing.

The obvious question about this liberal political disaster is: How did the liberal Zionists get it so wrong? These people hate the occupation, as a threat to the two-state solution. They have documented the abuses of occupation for 20 years. Yet why did everything they did to stop the occupation fail?

The answer is that liberal Zionists mistrusted the left more than they did the Zionist right. They were happy to argue the question with the Zionist right, in a spirit of Jewish solidarity (and lose again and again).

They didnt even allow the left in the room. Because much of the left is anti-Zionist. And in the end, liberal Zionists really believe in the need for a Jewish state more than an end to the occupation.

So the only tool that could have stopped Israel economic/symbolic global pressure through the nonviolent Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement the liberal Zionists wanted nothing to do with. They ran numerous campaigns denouncing BDS. They supported legislation that says BDS is antisemitic.

The rightwing Israeli government is terrified of BDS. Benjamin Netanyahu rails against it as an existential threat, as undermining Israels reputation. Israel spends millions to combat it and rightwing Israel lobby groups spend millions here to fight it and try to make BDS illegal. Liberal Zionists largely joined the fight of its rightwing friends. Because many BDSers are against a Jewish state, and that was the number one priority for liberal Zionists. Liberal Zionists said the BDS campaign was against the self-determination of the Jewish people.

So even though liberal Zionists hated the occupation they became patsies for the occupation. Here are some of their tactical collapses:

They said that Israel responded to love not pressure, look at Bill Clinton and Camp David, so we shouldnt pressure Israel and make her feel insecure.

They said that it was ok to talk about possibly conditioning aid to Israel that paid for the demolition of Palestinian villages, as Jeremy Ben-Ami said last October. But that $4 billion in aid must never be reduced. J Street doesnt think there is a reason for to reduce the level of the aid.

They said that political support for Israel must remain bipartisan. They did not want the aid politicized.

They said that they would rather have the company of rightwing Zionists than anti-Zionists. Americans for Peace Now is on the board of AIPAC. J Street invites a lot of conservative American Zionists to speak, but never an anti-Zionist Jew (though some young ones slip through the cracks).

The liberal Zionists tried to redline anti-Zionism because they were concerned that anti-Zionist pressure would empower Palestinians who dont believe in a Jewish state, and the result would be a one-state nightmare, bloody rollercoaster, as someone once put it, and possibly some implementation of the right of return under which Palestinian refugees or their descendants would get back homes and property stolen from them during the Nakba. Liberal Zionists were terrified of the right of return, which is a pillar of the BDS campaign, because it threatens the Jewish majority in Israel, and was thought to destabilize Israel. Though as even Leanne Gale pointed out in a rare anti-Zionist dissent at a J Street conference, the two-state solution called for addressing the right of return, and the real fear was BDSs call for equality of Palestinian citizens of Israel.

And I actually think thatthatmay be the most threatening plank of the BDS movement to many of us in the American Jewish community. Because it really gets to the heart of Zionism itself. It really gets to the heart of, Do we believe deep down, that there can be a Jewish and democratic state?

The liberal Zionists are Jewish organizations, and in the end they respected conservative codes of Jewish solidarity: Jewish collective support for the Jewish state, because 95 percent of American Jews are for Israel. Jews must speak in one voice in Washington, because our support is existential, we hold the breathing tube for Israel in the courts of the superpower.

And so the one tool that Israel fears, international pressure, the liberal Zionists refused to support. The tool that liberals used so effectively in the Jim Crow South and apartheid South Africa to fight systemic racism, liberal Zionists worked against.

And look what they got, one apartheid state. That Israel no longer has a political constituency for a genuine 2 state solution or ending Israeli occupation is the most under-reported and under-analyzed realities in all Middle East policy analyses, writes Khaled Elgindy of Brookings.

The calls to punish Israel now for the colonization of the West Bank are too little too late. Theres one sovereign in Israel and Palestine, Israeli leaders are all for the occupation, and they all take American support for granted. As well they should. The liberal Zionists were all talk and no action.

See original here:

Liberal Zionists couldnt end the occupation because they feared equality more than Israeli right - Mondoweiss

Huntington Ingalls updates and extends liberal leave policy for Newport News Shipbuilding and other divisions – WAVY.com

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (WAVY) Huntington Ingalls Industries, owner of the Newport News Shipbuilding division, announced on Thursday that the company has updated and extended its liberal leave policy due to the continued spread of the coronavirus.

The updates will begin Monday, April 6 and be enterprise-wide. The leave is designed to allow flexibility and additional options for employees who need to make arrangements for families, child care, business closures, and any other planning needed due to the coronavirus.

The updated and extended policy defines the following situations as eligible for liberal leave:

The company released that employees who fall into one or more of the categories may be eligible for unemployment insurance by applying through the employees state agency.

Newport News Shipbuilding released that it plans to have the liberal leave in effect until at least April 30. Information on NNSs liberal leave documentation process can be found online.

The policy follows along with the recently passed Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act to expand financial lifelines for individuals and their families, according to a statement released. At HII, we have been following the CARES Act closely and have decided to modify our liberal leave policy in response to the acts unemployment insurance ruling to provide greater options for our employees and their families.

Read more about Newport News Shipbuilding daily coronavirus updates.

See the article here:

Huntington Ingalls updates and extends liberal leave policy for Newport News Shipbuilding and other divisions - WAVY.com

Coronavirus and economic liberalism – The Nation

While coronavirus ravages the globe and hits all major financial capitals, it is dawning on the common man that the capitalist ideology and liberalism has failed to rise to the occasion and this fair weather friend called capitalism is an anathema to the word humanity.

Interestingly, it is also becoming apparent that states like China, with central control and disciplined populations, are more suitable to fight pandemics like Coronavirus. Some of the so-called mature democracies like the US and European countries as well as noisy ones like India have not only failed to come out with a cohesive response but also resorted to gimmickry and deflection. The recent example of Indian PM Modi asking 1300 million Indians to come out in their balconies and clap and light candles is testimony to this absurdity. Someone from Dharawi Slum in Mumbai, the largest slum in Asia, asked PM Modi through social media with three families living in a hundred square foot room, where should they find a balcony.

As per Wikipedia, economic liberalism is a political and economic philosophy based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberals can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, they tend to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition.

As an economic system, economic liberalism is organised on individual lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households rather than by collective institutions or organisations. An economy that is managed according to these precepts may be described as a liberal economy.

Adam Smith and his followers in the west advocated for economic liberalism, emphasising on free markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberalism is also considered opposed to non-capitalist economic orders such as socialism and planned economies. It also contrasts with protectionism because of its support for free trade and open markets.

If economic liberalism was considered as a panacea to all problems faced by humanity, why did states intervene in Italy, Spain, France, US and even in South Asia and Africa to stem the tide of coronavirus, and, why did a socialist state like China fare better in this pandemic?

Since mainstream media in most democracies is controlled by vested corporate interests and the rich, the discussion on rights of the 99% vs the 1% rich does not take place openly. Coronavirus has exposed this nexus and its time to highlight it for the general public.

Foreign Policy magazine conducted a short survey, asking some leading thinkers and opinion makers to come out with their assessment on the impact of coronavirus on the New World Order.

Stephen M Walt believes that the pandemic will strengthen the state and reinforce nationalism. Governments of all types will adopt emergency measures to manage the crisis, and many will be loath to relinquish these new powers when the crisis is over. COVID-19 will also accelerate the shift in power and influence from West to East. South Korea and Singapore have responded best, and China has reacted well after its early mistakes. The response in Europe and America has been slow and haphazard by comparison, further tarnishing the aura of the Western brand.

Walt goes on to conclude that conflictive nature of world politics. Previous plagues including the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919 did not end great-power rivalry nor usher in a new era of global cooperation. Neither will COVID-19. We will see a further retreat from hyper-globalisation, as citizens look to national governments to protect them and as states and firms seek to reduce future vulnerabilities.

In short, COVID-19 will create a world that is less open, less prosperous, and less free. It did not have to be this way, but the combination of a deadly virus, inadequate planning, and incompetent leadership has placed humanity on a new and worrisome path.

Robbin Niblett stated that it seems highly unlikely in this context that the world will return to the idea of mutually beneficial globalisation that defined the early 21st century. And without the incentive to protect the shared gains from global economic integration, the architecture of global economic governance established in the 20th century will quickly atrophy. It will then take enormous self-discipline for political leaders to sustain international cooperation and not retreat into overt geopolitical competition.

Getting closer to home in South Asia, we find the same failure of economic liberalism at play in India. On one side, India boasts billionaires and brainiacs, nuclear bombs, technology and democracy, whereas on the other, it conceals the fact that two-thirds of people in India live in poverty or on the margins.

Why is India getting exposed in her own people and the international media? For decades, India has remained on the top spot of countries with 70% population living below or on the margins of poverty line. Tens of millions of people remain destitute and thousands of farmers commit suicide each year. Nearly 40 percent of Indian children under 5 are short for their age, a sign of chronic under nutrition. Then it invented the witchcraft of playing with figures thus bluffing the Indian nation and the international community.

Indian Finance Minister announced a relief package worth Rs1.70 lakh crore to help the nations poor tackle the financial difficulties arising from Covid-19 outbreak. Under the relief package, at least 800 million poor people will be covered; this package will translate into an additional five kilos of rice/wheat for every individual for a period of one month.

Indian mega-slums like Dharawi are made up of millions of informal workers who run mega cities like Mumbai, these slums are without sufficient drinking water supply, without garbage disposal and in many cases without electricity. The richest 10% in India controls 80% of the nations wealth, according to a 2017 report by Oxfam. And the top 1% owns 58% of Indias wealth. (By comparison, the richest 1% in the United States owns 37% of the wealth). Another way to look at it: In India, the wealth of 16 people is equal to the wealth of 600 million people.

The coronavirus lockdown in India created a wave of poor and hapless people who were evicted from their work places and temporary homes by the rich, since they could not pay for their food and rent, the world witnessed a massive migration of approximately 10 million Indian marching for hundreds of kilometres to their villages, some of them dying on the roads. This March of Shame has actually become an epitaph on the grave of economic liberalism in India.

To conclude, economic liberalism has played havoc in developed and developing countries and has failed the test of our times; it has created a swamp of money in the hands of 1% super rich and the states have become hostage to these individuals and multinational corporations. The post-corona environment is definitely going to change how states and the people come up with a new social contract.

Adeela Naureen and

Umar Waqar

The authors are freelance journalists. They can be reached at adeelanaureen@gmail.com.

Originally posted here:

Coronavirus and economic liberalism - The Nation

Sorry liberals, Modi didnt buckle to Trumps retaliation threat to export hydroxychloroquine heres the full story – Free Press Journal

On Tuesday, a host of liberal Twitterati which loves to see PM Narendra Modi with egg on his face lost its collective marbles in joy mind you when they thought the Modi government had allegedly buckled to Uncle Sams pressure and allowed the export of hydroxychloroquine after Trump threatened retaliation.

A host of individuals including top Congress leaders like Rahul Gandhi and Shashi Tharoor not to mention the literati on Twitter got super excited about Trumps retaliation and Modi supposedly buckling to pressure.

Some even got misty-eyed about the time when Indira Gandhi showed Richard Nixon his place.

The CPI(M) known for its love for Uncle Sam slammed Modis capitulation to brazen blackmail. This came despite the fact that India was already engaged in a discussion on HCQ supply after Trump and Modis speech.

For starters, Trumps retaliation comment came after a reported asked him questions. But more on that later.

Secondly, as explained by the Print editor-in-chief Shekhar Gupta, among others, the outrage is misplaced if one accepts the true chronology of events.

Heres the dateline:

April 4 Trump calls Modi, say he has request Modi for HCQ that Uncle Sam had ordered, and admitted that India also needs a lot.

April 5 Roughly 4 AM IST Trump says he had another conversation with Modi and India will likely release the required HCQ and makes the retaliation comment.

Read the transcript:

Trump said: I dont like that decision. I didnt hear that that was his decision. I know that he stopped it for other countries. I spoke to him yesterday. We had a very good talk and well see whether or not that is. I would be surprised if he would because India does very well with the United States. For many years theyve been taken advantage of the United States on trade. So I would be surprised if that were his decision. Hed have to tell me that. I spoke to him Sunday morning, called him, and I said, wed appreciate your allowing our supply to come out. If he doesnt allow it to come out, that would be okay. But of course there may be retaliation. Why wouldnt there be? Yeah.

Now heres the real problem. Even before Trumps statement, several reports had already pointed out that India had agreed to lift the ban.

They were Mint, The Hindu and The Print. This occurred even before Trumps evening presser. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together who doesnt have an agenda can clearly see

But as the old saying goes, a lie can travel halfway across the world even before the truth can get its boot on. Now with Twitter, the lie doesnt even need to leave its house during quarantine.

The rest is here:

Sorry liberals, Modi didnt buckle to Trumps retaliation threat to export hydroxychloroquine heres the full story - Free Press Journal

The PBS documentary The Gene showcases genetics promise and pitfalls – Science News

The genetic code to alllife on Earth, both simple and complex, comes down to four basic letters: A, C,T and G.

Untangling the role thatthese letters play in lifes blueprint has allowed scientists to understandwhat makes everything from bacteria to people the way they are. But as researchershave learned more, they have also sought ways to tinker with this blueprint,bringing ethical dilemmas into the spotlight. The Gene, a two-part PBS documentary from executive producer Ken Burnsairing April 7 and 14, explores the benefits and risks that come withdeciphering lifes code.

The film begins with oneof those ethical challenges. The opening moments describe how biophysicist HeJiankui used the gene-editing tool CRISPR/Cas9 to alter the embryos of twin girls who were born in China in 2018 (SN: 12/17/18). Worldwide, criticscondemned the move, claiming it was irresponsible to change the girls DNA, asexperts dont yet fully understand the consequences.

This moment heraldedthe arrival of a new era, narrator David Costabile says. An era in whichhumans are no longer at the mercy of their genes, but can control and evenchange them.

Headlines and summaries of the latest Science News articles, delivered to your inbox

The story sets the stagefor a prominent theme throughout the documentary: While genetics holdsincredible potential to improve the lives of people with genetic diseases,there are always those who will push science to its ethical limits. But thedriving force in the film is the inquisitive nature of the scientistsdetermined to uncover what makes us human.

The Gene, based on the book of the same name by Siddhartha Mukherjee (SN:12/18/16), one of the documentarys executive producers, highlights many ofthe most famous discoveries in genetics. The film chronicles Gregor Mendels classicpea experiments describing inheritance and how experts ultimately revealed inthe 1940s that DNA a so-called stupid molecule composed of just four chemicalbases, adenine (A), thymine (T),cytosine (C) and guanine (G) is responsible for storing geneticinformation. Historical footage, inBurns typical style, brings to life stories describing the discovery of DNAshelical structure in the 1950s and the success of the Human Genome Project indecoding the human genetic blueprint in 2003.

The film also touches ona few of the ethical violations that came from these discoveries. The eugenicsmovement in both Nazi Germany and the United States in the early 20th century aswell as the story of the first person to die in a clinical trial for genetherapy, in 1999, cast a morbid shadow on the narrative.

Interwoven into thistimeline are personal stories from people who suffer from genetic diseases.These vignettes help viewers grasp the hope new advances can give patients asexperts continue to wrangle with DNA in efforts to make those cures.

In the documentarysfirst installment, which focuses on the early days of genetics, viewers meet a family whose daughter is grappling with arare genetic mutation that causes her nerve cells to die. The family searchesfor a cure alongside geneticist Wendy Chung of Columbia University. The secondpart follows efforts to master the human genome and focuses on AudreyWinkelsas, a molecular biologist at the National Institutes of Health studyingspinal muscular atrophy, a disease she herself has, and a family fighting tosave their son from a severe form of the condition.

For science-interested viewers, the documentary does not disappoint. The Gene covers what seems to be every angle of genetics history from the ancient belief that sperm absorbed mystical vapors to pass traits down to offspring to the discovery of DNAs structure to modern gene editing. But the stories of the scientists and patients invested in overcoming diseases like Huntingtons and cancer make the film all the more captivating.

Continued here:

The PBS documentary The Gene showcases genetics promise and pitfalls - Science News

Few clinical trials are done in Africa: COVID-19 shows why this urgently needs to change – The Conversation Africa

The World Health Organisation (WHO), in its quest to find efficacious therapies to treat COVID-19, plans to conduct a multi-arm, multi-country clinical trial. The trials have yet to begin, but ten countries have already signed up. Only one of them, South Africa, is on the African continent.

Of course, the WHO isnt the only organisation trying to find treatments or even a vaccine for COVID-19. The United States National Institutes of Health maintains an online platform that lists all registered, ongoing clinical trials globally. On March 26, a quick search of the platform using the term coronavirus revealed 157 ongoing trials; 87 of these involve either a drug or a vaccine, while the rest are behavioural studies. Only three are registered in Africa all of them in Egypt.

This low representation of African countries in clinical trials is not unusual. Poor visibility of existing sites, limited infrastructure and unpredictable clinical trial regulatory timelines are some of the key issues hindering investments in this area.

Africas virtual absence from the clinical trials map is a big problem. The continent displays an incredible amount of genetic diversity. If this diversity is not well represented in clinical trials, the trial findings cannot be generalised to large populations.

The same goes for the outcomes of the COVID-19 studies. They too may not be relevant for people in African countries unless conducted locally. This is because responses to drugs or vaccines are complicated and can be influenced by, among other things, human genetics: different people will respond differently to different drugs and vaccines.

More countries on the African continent must urgently get involved in clinical trials so that the data collected will accurately represent the continent at a genetic level.

Time is of the essence. The usual approach, of developing site or country specific protocols, wont work. Instead, African governments need to look at ways to harmonise the response towards COVID-19 across the continent. Now, more than ever, African countries need to work together.

Africa does have clinical trial infrastructure and capabilities. But the resources remain unevenly distributed. The vast majority are in Egypt and South Africa. Thats because these countries have invested more heavily in research and development than others on the continent.

Traditionally, clinical trials are conducted at centres of excellence, which are sites that have the appropriate infrastructure and human skills necessary to conduct good quality trials. These can be located at a single university or research organisation, or work can be split between a few locations. But setting up these centres requires significant time and financial investment. Most that I am aware of on the continent have developed over the years with heavy support from external partners or sponsors. In many cases, African governments have not been involved in these efforts.

Once such centres are set up, the hard work continues to maintain these centres and to ensure theyre able to attract clinical trial sponsors. They require continuous funding, the establishment of proper institutional governance and the creation of trusted, consistent networks.

Usually African scientists leading clinical trial sites can apply for funding to conduct a trial; if the site is well known the scientists may be approached by a sponsor such as a pharmaceutical company interested in conducting a trial.

Clearly this approach takes time and usually benefits well-known sites or triallists. So what alternatives are available in the face of an epidemic thats moving as fast as COVID-19?

Key stakeholders should work together to expedite the rollout of trials in different countries. This would include inter-country collaborations such as working with different governments and scientists in co-designing trials; and providing harmonised guidelines on patient management, sample collection and tracking and sharing results in real time.

African governments, meanwhile, should provide additional funding to clinical research institutions and clinical trial sites. This would allow the sites to pull resources together and rapidly enrol patients to answer various research questions.

Because of the uneven distribution of skills and resources the continent should also adopt a hub-and-spoke model in its efforts. This would involve countries that dont have much capacity being able to ship samples easily across borders for analysis in a centralised well-equipped laboratory, which then feeds back data to the country of sample origin.

Governments should also form a task force to quickly engage with key pharmaceutical companies with drug candidates for COVID-19. This team should establish the companies appetite for collaborations in conducting relevant trials on the continent.

Through all of this, it is necessary for stakeholders to identify and address key ethical issues that may arise. Ethics should not be compromised by haste.

Every countrys epidemic preparedness kit should contain funds set aside for clinical trials during epidemics or pandemics.

This would require governments on the continent to evaluate their role and level of investment in the general area of clinical trials. This will augment the quality and quantity of clinical trials in the face of the constant challenge of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases as well as a steady rise in non-communicable diseases.

On top of this, clinical trial centres, clinical research institutions and clinical triallists on the continent should strive to increase their visibility in the global space. This will make them easy to find in times of crisis, and enhance both south-south and north-south collaborations.

The African Academy of Sciences is currently building an online platform to facilitate this visibility and encourage greater collaboration.

Read more:

Few clinical trials are done in Africa: COVID-19 shows why this urgently needs to change - The Conversation Africa

UCLA web app will enlist publics help in slowing the spread of COVID-19 – Newswise

Leticia Ortiz |April 7, 2020

Newswise A team of UCLA researchers has launchedStop COVID-19 Together, a web-based app that will enable the public to help fight the spread of the coronavirus.

Through the site, anybody can take a brief survey that covers basic demographics, whether they have symptoms and their possible exposure to COVID-19. The system aggregates users responses to help the UCLA team find ways to reduce the spread of the virus, and to try to protect the health system from being overloaded.

The key contributors to Stop COVID-19 Together are the members of the public who contribute data to the effort, which is designed to predict the spread of COVID-19 throughout the community and to assess the effectiveness of current measures in that community, including physical distancing, said Dr. Vladimir Manuel, a clinician, medical director of urgent care at UCLA Health and one of the projects leaders. We are extremely grateful to everyone who is contributing.

The app was created by UCLA experts from a range of fields, including engineering, data science, clinical medicine, epidemiology and public health. The project is an initiative of the AI in Medicine program at theUCLA Department of Computational Medicine, which is part of UCLA Health.

One of the most pressing challenges with the coronavirus pandemic is the lack of information, said Eran Halperin, a UCLA professor of computational medicine, computer science, human genetics and anesthesiology, and another leader of the project. We do not have a clear understanding of how many people are infected, where they are or how effective the measures that we are taking to slow the spread have been. And we dont know how much strain the virus will put on our local hospitals in the near and more distant future.

The system will build a map of possible hotspots where there may be a higher risk for accelerated spread of the disease. Identifying hotspots will be critical for helping hospitals and medical centers reduce the risk of becoming overloaded as the number of people with COVID-19 increases. The system will also inform the public where hotspots are located, and it is using artificial intelligence to predict where and when the disease will spread. That information could be useful to public officials letting them know, for example, how effective physical distancing is in slowing the spread.

Our system will use machine learning tools to answer these questions and make predictions that will help us as a society be more prepared to fight this disease, said Jeff Chiang, a data scientist on the team.

Follow #TeamLA and #stopcovid19together on social media.

Go here to see the original:

UCLA web app will enlist publics help in slowing the spread of COVID-19 - Newswise

Why does the new coronavirus kill some people and barely affect others? – Wilkes-Barre Citizens Voice

GINA FERAZZI / LOS ANGELES TIMES Riverside County medical personnel administer a coronavirus test to a motorist at a drive-thru testing facility at Diamond Stadium in Lake Elsinore, California, on March 21. Those tested have symptoms or have had a risk of exposure.

SAN JOSE, Calif. Monica and Adrian Arima both were infected by COVID-19 at the same time on the same Nile River cruise, probably during a shared dinner buffet between the Egyptian cities of Aswan and Luxor. As they traveled home to Palo Alto, California, the couples early symptoms body aches and low-grade fever were identical.

But then, mysteriously, their experiences suddenly diverged. Monica spent 13 days at Stanford Hospital; Adrian was there for just three days. She needed extra oxygen and an experimental drug; he didnt.

Now, weeks later, she still has a cough. He is fully recovered, healthy enough to go food shopping and do other errands. Meanwhile, two of their traveling companions in their 70s and 80s tested positive but never suffered symptoms.

Their experience illustrates one of the many puzzling questions raised by the lethal new disease: Why is COVID-19 so inexplicably and dreadfully selective? The difference between life and death can depend on the patients health and age but not always.

To understand, scientists are scrutinizing patients medical histories, genomes and recoveries for any clues to explain this mystery.

Why are some people completely asymptomatic, some have mild disease, others have severe disease but recover and others have fatal disease? We are still trying to figure this out, said Dr. Brian Schwartz, vice chief for clinical affairs in UC San Franciscos Division of Infectious Diseases.

For most, not severe

It is a small subset of people that will go on to develop serious disease. Most will not, he said. We want to learn how to prevent people from developing serious disease and if they do, figure out how to treat it the right way.

Its well-known that death rates are higher among older people. Only 0.2% of people younger than 19 die. But for people between the ages of 60 and 69, the death rate is 3.6%. It jumps to 8% to 12.5% for those between ages 70 and 79, and 14.8% to 20% for those older than 80.

But theres more to it than that. Monica Arima is age 64; her husband, Adrian, is 70. But she has asthma and diabetes, while his underlying health is good.

Emerging U.S. data confirms trends seen in China and Italy: Rates of serious COVID-related symptoms are higher in those with other medical problems and risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic renal disease and smoking. In a U.S. Centers for Disease Control report released Tuesday, higher percentages of patients with underlying conditions were admitted to the hospital and to an ICU than patients without other health issues.

There may also be a genetic influence.

One of the things that weve learned from human genetics is that there are extremes at the human phenotype distribution, and pathogen susceptibility is no different, Stanford geneticist Carlos Bustamante told the journal Science. Stanford is part of a COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative, a Finnish effort to link genetic variants associated with COVID-19 susceptibility and severity.

There are going to be people who are particularly susceptible, and there are going to be those who are particularly resistant, he said.

At the cellular level

Biologically, whats going on?

One leading theory is focused on the doors of a cell that permit the virus to enter. We know that the virus enters the body through epithelial cells in the respiratory tract. To get inside the cell, the virus uses a door a receptor called ACE-2 (angiotensin converting enzyme 2) on the cells surface.

Individual variations in this receptor could make it harder or easier for the virus to enter, cause infection and burrow deep into the lungs. In some of us, the cell door may open easily; in others, it may stay closed.

Or perhaps some people simply have more of these receptors on their cells. With more doors, the virus may enter more readily, so patients suffer worse infection and more serious disease, said Schwartz.

Theres an abundance of this ACE-2 receptor in cells in the lower lung, which may explain the high incidence of pneumonia and bronchitis in those with severe COVID-19 infection.

Once someone is infected, their immune systems response to that infection is likely the next big decider of their fate.

Doctors are discovering that nine or 10 days into the illness, theres a fork in the road. In most people, the immune system launches a carefully calibrated and effective response, so they recover. But in others, the immune response is too aggressive, triggering massive inflammation in whats called a cytokine storm. Immune cells are overproduced and flood into the lungs, making it hard to breathe and leading to often fatal acute respiratory distress syndrome. Those people develop sepsis, then acute kidney and heart damage. By day 20, they may be dead.

Why does the immune system misbehave? One reason may be age. As we get older, our immune response grows less accurate. It doesnt respond as effectively, and it is not as well-regulated. Genetics may also play a role.

Finally, other preexisting illnesses seem to elevate our risk, although the precise mechanisms arent known.

There may be something about these illnesses that causes them to have an abundance of ACE-2 open doors on the cell surface, Schwartz speculated.

Or perhaps the viral infection worsens the underlying diseases.

Not just the lungs

While typically considered a threat to the lungs, the virus also presents a significant threat to heart health, according to recently published research.

Cardiovascular disease, for example, is an inflammatory condition; so is COVID-19, said cardiologist Dr. Michelle A. Albert of UC San Francisco and president of the Bay Area American Heart Associations board of directors.

New research shows that the inflammatory response of a cytokine storm can lead to heart failure.

The circulating cytokines released during a severe systemic inflammatory stress can lead to atherosclerotic plaque instability and rupture. And infections can trigger an increase in myocardial demand.

Against the backdrop of existing inflammation, it could set off a cascade that results in a worsened underlying biological system, she said.

Some cancer treatments including chemotherapy, targeted therapies, immunotherapy and radiation can weaken the immune system, making a patient more vulnerable.

And if the airways of the lungs already are impaired by illnesses such as cystic fibrosis, asthma, emphysema or surgery, that person is much more susceptible to a pathogen that enters and infects the injured tissue.

People living with cystic fibrosis particularly need to be cautious because they already have compromised lung function and are susceptible to chronic infections, said Ashley Mahoney of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

That likely explains the different courses of illness experienced by singer songwriter John Prine and his wife, Fiona, both infected during a recent tour in Europe. Fiona has recovered. But Prine, a survivor of lung cancer surgery, is hospitalized and critically ill.

Also at risk is anyone who must take medication to suppress their immune systems, such as organ transplant recipients.

Viral infections are always hard on people with diabetes, according to the American Diabetes Association. Thats because infection can cause the body to produce higher levels of certain hormones, such as adrenaline or cortisol, which counter the effects of insulin. Patients may develop a dangerous condition called diabetic ketoacidosis.

Patients come in all different kinds, said Monica Arima.

Some, like my husband, recover at home, without much help, she said. But I got knocked down.

Visit link:

Why does the new coronavirus kill some people and barely affect others? - Wilkes-Barre Citizens Voice

COVID-19: Few Clinical Trials are Done in Africa. This Needs to Change ASAP. – The Wire

The World Health Organisation (WHO), in its quest to find efficacious therapies to treat COVID-19, plans to conduct a multi-arm, multi-country clinical trial. The trials have yet to begin, but ten countries have already signed up. Only one of them, South Africa, is on the African continent.

Of course, the WHO isnt the only organisation trying to find treatments or even a vaccine for COVID-19. The United States National Institutes of Health maintains an online platform that lists all registered, ongoing clinical trials globally. On March 26, a quick search of the platform using the term coronavirus revealed 157 ongoing trials; 87 of these involve either a drug or a vaccine, while the rest are behavioural studies. Only three are registered in Africa all of them in Egypt.

This low representation of African countries in clinical trials is not unusual. Poor visibility of existing sites, limited infrastructure and unpredictable clinical trial regulatory timelines are some of the key issues hindering investments in this area.

Africas virtual absence from the clinical trials map is a big problem. The continent displays an incredible amount of genetic diversity. If this diversity is not well represented in clinical trials, the trial findings cannot be generalised to large populations.

The same goes for the outcomes of the COVID-19 studies. They too may not be relevant for people in African countries unless conducted locally. This is because responses to drugs or vaccines are complicated and can be influenced by, among other things, human genetics: different people will respond differently to different drugs and vaccines.

More countries on the African continent must urgently get involved in clinical trials so that the data collected will accurately represent the continent at a genetic level.

Time is of the essence. The usual approach, of developing site or country specific protocols, wont work. Instead, African governments need to look at ways to harmonise the response towards COVID-19 across the continent. Now, more than ever, African countries need to work together.

Centres of excellence

Africa does have clinical trial infrastructure and capabilities. But the resources remain unevenly distributed. The vast majority are in Egypt and South Africa. Thats because these countries have invested more heavily in research and development than others on the continent.

Traditionally, clinical trials are conducted at centres of excellence, which are sites that have the appropriate infrastructure and human skills necessary to conduct good quality trials. These can be located at a single university or research organisation, or work can be split between a few locations. But setting up these centres requires significant time and financial investment. Most that I am aware of on the continent have developed over the years with heavy support from external partners or sponsors. In many cases, African governments have not been involved in these efforts.

Once such centres are set up, the hard work continues to maintain these centres and to ensure theyre able to attract clinical trial sponsors. They require continuous funding, the establishment of proper institutional governance and the creation of trusted, consistent networks.

Also read: COVID-19: What Are Serological Tests, and How Can They Help India?

Usually African scientists leading clinical trial sites can apply for funding to conduct a trial; if the site is well known the scientists may be approached by a sponsor such as a pharmaceutical company interested in conducting a trial.

Clearly this approach takes time and usually benefits well-known sites or triallists. So what alternatives are available in the face of an epidemic thats moving as fast as COVID-19?

How to change direction

Key stakeholders should work together to expedite the rollout of trials in different countries. This would include inter-country collaborations such as working with different governments and scientists in co-designing trials; and providing harmonised guidelines on patient management, sample collection and tracking and sharing results in real time.

African governments, meanwhile, should provide additional funding to clinical research institutions and clinical trial sites. This would allow the sites to pull resources together and rapidly enrol patients to answer various research questions.

Because of the uneven distribution of skills and resources the continent should also adopt a hub-and-spoke model in its efforts. This would involve countries that dont have much capacity being able to ship samples easily across borders for analysis in a centralised well-equipped laboratory, which then feeds back data to the country of sample origin.

Governments should also form a task force to quickly engage with key pharmaceutical companies with drug candidates for COVID-19. This team should establish the companies appetite for collaborations in conducting relevant trials on the continent.

Through all of this, it is necessary for stakeholders to identify and address key ethical issues that may arise. Ethics should not be compromised by haste.

Beyond COVID-19

Every countrys epidemic preparedness kit should contain funds set aside for clinical trials during epidemics or pandemics.

This would require governments on the continent to evaluate their role and level of investment in the general area of clinical trials. This will augment the quality and quantity of clinical trials in the face of the constant challenge of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases as well as a steady rise in non-communicable diseases.

On top of this, clinical trial centres, clinical research institutions and clinical triallists on the continent should strive to increase their visibility in the global space. This will make them easy to find in times of crisis, and enhance both south-south and north-south collaborations.

The African Academy of Sciences is currently building an online platform to facilitate this visibility and encourage greater collaboration.

Jenniffer Mabuka-Maroa isProgramme Manager, African Academy of Sciences.

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

Go here to read the rest:

COVID-19: Few Clinical Trials are Done in Africa. This Needs to Change ASAP. - The Wire

‘Behavioral suppression’ needed to decrease coronavirus infections in Japan: experts – The Mainichi

People walk along Harajuku's famous Takeshita Street in Tokyo's Shibuya Ward, on March 28, 2020. (Mainichi/Kimi Takeuchi)

Experts in Japan have been simulating how the spread of the novel coronavirus can be tamped down, but in areas where the national government has declared a state of emergency, people's behavior must be firmly restricted, which is a task that, realistically speaking, is extremely difficult.

Akihiro Sato, a professor of data science at Yokohama City University, analyzed the numbers of 15 prefectures, including the seven where the state of emergency was declared. Based on the number of newly infected people announced by local governments, and the proportion of people who recover after being infected and showing symptoms, Sato calculated the shift in the numbers of people who were infected. Setting behavior before the period in which newly infected people increased by a large margin at 100%, Sato calculated the target percentage at which people must refrain from direct contact with others in the following two weeks for no new infections to be detected in the long term.

The results showed that in the case of Tokyo, every individual would have to cut back on the time spent on public transportation and the people they meet by 98%. For example, if one person rides on trains and buses for a total of seven hours per week, and has direct contact with a total of 100 people through work and leisure activities, that person must cut back their time on public transport to 8.4 minutes and their contact to two people per week to prevent new infections from being detected in the long term.

Fukuoka Prefecture requires the greatest behavioral restrictions, at 99.8%. Professor Sato emphasized, "Similar to evacuating from floods and tsunami, the current infection requires behavior that avoids people."

Meanwhile, Jun Ohashi, an associate professor at the University of Tokyo who specializes in human genetics, took particular note of the behavior of those infected with the new coronavirus who have symptoms and those who do not. Based on global infection data, Ohashi postulated that one person infects, on average, 2.5 people. He then calculated that in a city of 100,000 people, when there is one person who tests positive for the virus, the number of newly infected people in a day will reach 15,700 people at its peak. However, if the person who tests positive for the virus reduces their contact frequency with others by 55% of their usual behavior, newly infected people would drop to 430 people per day.

"Unless everyone, including those who are asymptomatic and those who are not infected, suppress the frequency with which they come into contact with people, the number of people who are infected will continue to rise, possibly causing the collapse of the health care system," Ohashi said. "Until we come up with vaccines and therapeutic medications, a long-term vision is essential, and it is important to change the awareness of each and every individual.

Hiroshi Nishiura, a professor specializing in theoretical epidemiology at Hokkaido University, has also calculated that if person-to-person contact can be reduced by 80%, the number of newly infected people would decline.

(Japanese original by Ryo Watanabe and Ayumu Iwasaki, Science & Medical News Department)

Go here to read the rest:

'Behavioral suppression' needed to decrease coronavirus infections in Japan: experts - The Mainichi

The secret call of the wild: how animals teach each other to survive – The Guardian

Sam Williams Macaw Recovery Network in Costa Rica rewilds captivity-hatched fledgling scarlet and great green macaws. But introducing young birds into a complex forest world bereft of the cultural education normally provided by parents is slow and risky.

For 30 years or so scientists have referred to the diversity of life on Earth as biological diversity, or just biodiversity. They usually define biodiversity as operating at three levels: the diversity of genes within any particular species; the diversity of species in a given place; and the diversity of habitat types such as forests, coral reefs, and so on. But does that cover it? Not really. A fourth level has been almost entirely overlooked: cultural diversity.

Culture is knowledge and skills that flow socially from individual to individual and generation to generation. Its not in genes. Socially learned skills, traditions and dialects that answer the question of how we live here are crucial to helping many populations survive or recover. Crucially, culturally learned skills vary from place to place. In the human family many cultures, underappreciated, have been lost. Culture in the other-than-human world has been almost entirely missed.

We are just recognising that in many species, survival skills must be learned from elders who learned from their elders. Until now, culture has remained a largely hidden, unrecognised layer of wild lives. Yet for many species culture is both crucial and fragile. Long before a population declines to numbers low enough to seem threatened with extinction, their special cultural knowledge, earned and passed down over long generations, begins disappearing. Recovery of lost populations then becomes much more difficult than bringing in a few individuals and turning them loose.

Many young birds learn much by observing their parents, and parrots probably need to learn more than most. Survival of released individuals is severely undermined if there are no free-living elder role models. Trying to restore parrot populations by captive breeding is not as easy as training young or orphaned creatures to recognise what is food while theyre in the safety of a cage then simply opening the door. In a cage, Williams says, you cant train them to know where, when and how to find that food, or about trees with good nest sites. Parents would normally have done exactly that.

A generational break in cultural traditions hampered attempts to reintroduce thick-billed parrots to parts of south-west America, where theyd been wiped out. Conservation workers could not teach the captive-raised parrots to search for and find their traditional wild foods, skills they would have learned from parents.

Landscapes, always complex, are under accelerated change. Culture enables adaptation far faster than genes alone can navigate hairpin turns in time. In some places, pigeons and sparrows have learned to use motion-sensors to get inside enclosed shopping malls and forage for crumbs. Crows have in some locales learned to drop nuts on the road for cars to crack. In at least one area they do this at intersections, so they can safely walk out and collect their cracked prizes when the light turns red and the cars stop. Theyve developed answers to the new question: How can we survive here, in this never-before world?

Because the answers are local, and learned from elders, wild cultures can be lost faster than genetic diversity. When populations plummet, traditions that helped animals survive and adapt to a place begin to vanish.

In a scientific article on the vocabulary of larks living in north Africa and Spain titled, Erosion of animal cultures in fragmented landscapes, researchers reported that as human development shrinks habitats into patches, isolation is associated with impoverishment. They write: Song repertoires pass through a cultural bottleneck and significantly decline in variety.

Unfortunately, isolated larks are not an isolated case. Researchers studying South Americas orange-billed sparrow found that sparrow song complexity the number of syllables per song and song length deteriorated as humans continued whittling their forests into fragments. When a scientist replayed 24-year-old recordings of singing male white-crowned sparrows at the same location shed recorded them, they elicited half the responses they had when first recorded. The birds responses show that changes in the dialect lead to changes in listener preference, a bit analogous to pop music. And as with humans, preferences can affect whether a particular bird will be accepted as a mate. White-crowned sparrows singing a local dialect become fathers of more offspring than do singers of unfamiliar dialects, indicating females prefer a familiar tune.

Im not just talking about a few songs. Survival of numerous species depends on cultural adaptation. How many? Were just beginning to ask such questions. But the preliminary answers indicate surprising and widespread ways that animals survive by cultural learning. Regionally different vocalisations are sometimes called song traditions but the more commonly used word is dialects. More than a hundred studies have been published on dialects in birds. And its not just birds but a wide array of animals Including some fish.

Cod particularly, said Steve Simpson of the University of Exeter, have very elaborate calls compared with many fish. You can easily hear differences in recorded calls of American and European Atlantic cod. This species is highly vocal with traditional breeding grounds established over hundreds or even thousands of years. Many fish follow elders to feeding, resting and breeding areas. In experiments, introduced outsiders who learned such preferred locales by following elders continued to use these traditional routes after all the original fish from whom they learned were gone.

Cultural survival skills erode as habitats shrink. Maintaining genetic diversity is not enough. Weve become accustomed to a perilous satisfaction with precariously minimal populations that not only risk genetic viability of populations but almost guarantee losing local cultural knowledge by which populations have lived and survived.

In all free-living parrots that have been studied, nestlings develop individually unique calls, learned from their parents. Researchers have described this as an intriguing parallel with human parents naming infants. Indeed, these vocal identities help individuals distinguish neighbours, mates, sexes and individuals; the same functions that human names serve.

Williams tells me that when he studied Amazon parrots, he could hear differences between them saying, essentially, Lets go, Im here, where are you? and Darling, I just brought breakfast. Researchers who develop really good ears for parrot vocalisation and use technology to study recordings show that parrot noise is more organised and meaningful than it sounds to beginners like me. In a study of budgerigars, for instance, birds who were unfamiliar with each other were placed together. Groups of unfamiliar females took a few weeks for their calls to converge and sound similar. Males copied the calls of females. Black-capped chickadees flock members calls converge, so they can distinguish members of their own flock from those of other flocks. The fact that this happens, and that it takes weeks, suggests that free-living groups must normally be stable, that groups have their own identity, and that the members identify with their group.

Group identity, we see repeatedly, is not exclusively human. Sperm whales learn and announce their group identity. Young fruit bats learn the dialects of the crowds theyre in. Ravens know whos in, whos out. Too many animals to list know what group, troop, family or pack they belong with. In Brazil, some dolphins drive fish toward fishermens nets for a share of the catch. Other dolphins dont. The ones who do, sound different from the ones who dont. Various dolphin groups who specialise in a food-getting technique wont socialise with other groups who use different techniques. And orca whales, the most socially complex non-humans, have layered societies of pods, clans and communities, with community members all knowing the members of all their constituent pods, but each community scrupulously avoiding contact with members of another community. All this social organisation is learned from elders.

Elders appear important for social learning of migratory routes. Various storks, vultures, eagles and hawks all depend on following the cues of elders to locate strategic migration flyways or important stopover sites. These could be called their migration cultures. Famously, conservationists have raised young cranes, geese and swans to follow microlight aircraft as a surrogate parent on first migrations. Without such enculturation, they would not have known where to go. The young birds absorbed knowledge of routes, then used them in later seasons on their own self-guided migrations. Four thousand species of birds migrate, so Andrew Whiten of the University of St Andrews in Scotland speculates that following experienced birds may be an underappreciated but very significant realm of cultural transmission.

When you look at free-living animals, you dont usually see culture. Culture makes itself visible when it gets disrupted. Then we see that the road back to reestablishing cultures the answers to the questions of how we live in this place is difficult, often fatal.

Young mammals too moose, bison, deer, antelope, wild sheep, ibex and many others learn crucial migration routes and destinations from elder keepers of traditional knowledge. Conservationists have recently reintroduced large mammals in a few areas where theyve been wiped out, but because animals released into unfamiliar landscapes dont know where food is, where dangers lurk, or where to go in changing seasons, many translocations have failed.

Williams describes his procedure with the macaws as very much a slow release. First his team trains the birds to use a feeder. With that safety net, they can explore the forest, gain local knowledge, begin dispersing and using wild foods.

Some rescue programmes declare success if a released animal survives one year. A year is meaningless for a bird like a macaw that doesnt mature until its eight years old, says Williams.

I ask what theyre doing for those eight long years.

Social learning, Williams replies immediately. Working out whos who, how to interact, like kids in school.

To gain access to the future, to mate and to raise young, the birds Williams is releasing must enter into the culture of their kind. But from whom will they learn, if no one is out there? At the very least they must be socially oriented to one another. Ex-pets are the worst candidates for release; they dont interact appropriately with other macaws, and they want to hang around near humans.

To assess the social abilities of 13 scarlet macaws who were scheduled for release, Williams and his crew documented how much time they spent close to another bird, how often they initiated aggression, things like that. When the bird scoring lowest for social skills was released, he flew out the door and was never seen again. The next-to-lowest didnt adapt to the free-living life and had to be retrieved. The third-lowest social scorer remained at liberty but stayed alone a lot. The rest did well.

All of the above adds up to this: a species isnt just one big jar of jellybeans of the same colour. Its different smaller jars with differing hues in different places. From region to region, genetics can vary. And cultural traditions can differ. Different populations might use different tools, different migration routes, different ways of calling, courting and being understood. All populations have their answers to the question of how to live where they live.

Sometimes a group will be foraging in a tree, Williams says. A pair will fly overhead on a straight path. Someone will make a contact call, and the flying birds will loop around and land with the callers. They seem to have their friends. Bottom line, said Williams, there is much going on in the social and cultural lives of his macaws and other species, much that they understand but we dont. We have a lot of questions. The answers must lurk, somewhere, in their minds.

As land, weather and climate change, some aspects of cultural knowledge will be the tickets necessary for boarding the future. Others will die out. Across the range of chimpanzees, cultures vary greatly, as do habitats. All populations but one use stick tools. Some use simple probes, others fashion multi-stick toolsets. Only one population makes pointed daggers for hunting small nocturnal primates called bush-babies hiding in tree holes. Only the westernmost chimpanzees crack nuts with stones.

As researchers have noted, distinctive tool-using traditions at particular sites are defining features of unique chimpanzee cultures. Whiten wrote: Chimpanzee communities resemble human cultures in possessing suites of local traditions that uniquely identify them A complex social inheritance system that complements the genetic picture.

Some chimpanzee populations have learned to track the progress of dozens of specific trees ripening in their dense forests. Others live in open semi-savannah. Some are more aggressively male-dominated, some populations more egalitarian. Some almost never see people; some live in sight of human settlements and have learned to crop-raid at night. For a long, long time chimpanzees have been works in progress. Weve learned, writes Craig Stanford, not to speak of The Chimpanzee. Chimpanzees vary and chimpanzee culture is variable at every level.

Its not just the loss of populations of chimps that worries me, Cat Hobaiter emphasised when I spent several weeks with her studying chimpanzees in Uganda. I find terrifying the possibility of losing each populations unique culture. Thats permanent.

Diversity in cultural pools perhaps more crucially than in gene pools will make species survival more likely. If pressures cause regional populations to blink out, a species odds of persisting dim.

Williams goal is to re-establish macaws where they range no longer, in hopes that they, and their forests, will recover. (Most of the central American forests that macaws need have been felled and burned, largely so fast-food burger chains can sell cheap beef.) It often takes a couple of generations for human immigrant families to learn how to function effectively in their new culture; it may take two or three generations before an introduced population of macaws succeeds. In other words, macaws are born to be wild. But becoming wild requires an education.

So whats at stake is not just numbers. Whats at stake is: ways of knowing how to be in the world. Culture isnt just a boutique concern. Cultural knowledge is what allows many populations to survive. Keeping the knowledge of how to live in a habitat can be almost as important to the persistence of a species as keeping the habitat; both are needed. Cultural diversity itself is a source of resilience and adaptability to change. And change is accelerating.

This is an edited extract from Becoming Wild: How Animals Learn to be Animals by Carl Safina, which published in the UK by Oneworld on 9 April and in the US by Henry Holt and Co on 14 April

Continue reading here:

The secret call of the wild: how animals teach each other to survive - The Guardian

European migrant crisis – Wikipedia

The European migrant crisis,[2][3][4][5][6] also known as the refugee crisis,[7][8][9][10] was a period characterised by high numbers of people arriving in the European Union (EU) from across the Mediterranean Sea or overland through Southeast Europe.[11][12] The migrant crisis was part of a pattern of increased immigration to Europe from other continents which began in the mid-20th century.[13] Between January 2015 and March 2016, according to the UNHCR, the top three nationalities among over one million Mediterranean Sea arrivals were Syrian refugees (46.7%), Afghan refugees (20.9%) and Iraqi refugees (9.4%).[14] Opposition to immigration in many European countries appeared to result partly from the socio-economic threat they were perceived to represent.[13]

The majority of people arriving in Italy and Greece especially have been from countries mired in war (Syrian civil war (2011present), War in Afghanistan (2001present), Iraqi conflict (2003present)) or which otherwise are considered to be 'refugee-producing' and for whom international protection is needed. However, a smaller proportion is from elsewhere, and for many of these individuals, the term 'migrant' would be correct. Immigrants (a person from a non-EU country establishing his or her usual residence in the territory of an EU country for a period that is, or is expected to be, at least twelve months) include asylum seekers and economic migrants.[15] Some research suggested that record population growth in Africa and the Middle East was one of the drivers of the crisis,[16] and it was also suggested that global warming could increase migratory pressures in the future.[17][18][19] In rare cases, immigration has been a cover for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) militants disguised as refugees or migrants.[20][21]

Most of the migrants came from regions south and east of Europe, including the Greater Middle East and Africa.[22] Of the migrants arriving in Europe by sea in 2015, 58% were males over 18 years of age (77% of adults), 17% were females over 18 (22% of adults) and the remaining 25% were under 18.[23] By religious affiliation, the majority of entrants were Muslim, with a small component of non-Muslim minorities (including Yazidis, Assyrians and Mandeans). The number of deaths at sea rose to record levels in April 2015, when five boats carrying almost 2,000 migrants to Europe sank in the Mediterranean Sea, with a combined death toll estimated at more than 1,200 people.[24] The shipwrecks took place in a context of ongoing conflicts and refugee crises in several Asian and African countries, which increased the total number of forcibly displaced people worldwide at the end of 2014 to almost 60 million, the highest level since World War II.[25][26]

The EU Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) uses the terms "illegal" and "irregular" border crossings for crossings of an EU external border but not at an official border-crossing point (BCP).[38] These include the entrance into Europe of people rescued at sea and brought to land by EU citizens.[39] The total number of such illegal EU external border crossings can be higher than the number of migrants newly illegally arriving in the EU in a certain year, as becomes clear in Table 1, especially for the years 2015 and 2016. News media sometimes misrepresent these correct figures as given by Frontex.[40]

After October 2013, when Italy started rescuing Africans from the Mediterranean Sea with a rescue program called 'Mare Nostrum' ('Our Sea'), the numbers of refugees arriving in Europe began to rise.[41]

Factors cited as immediate triggers or causes of the sudden and massive increase in migrant numbers in the summer of 2015 along the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Balkan route (Turkey-Greece-North Macedonia-Serbia-Hungary) include:

The opening of the North Macedonia route enabled migrants from the Middle East to take very short, inexpensive voyages from the coast of Turkey to the Greek Islands, instead of the far longer, more perilous, and far more expensive voyage from Libya to Italy. According to the Washington Post, in addition to reducing danger, this lowered the cost from around $56,000 to $23,000.[42]

On 18 June 2015 the government of North Macedonia announced that it was changing its policy on migrants entering the country illegally. Previously, migrants were forbidden from transiting North Macedonia, causing those who chose to do so to take perilous, clandestine modes of transit, such as walking along railroad tracks at night. Beginning in June, migrants were given three-day, temporary asylum permits, enabling them to travel by train and road.[43][42]

In the summer of 2015, several thousand people passed through North Macedonia and Serbia every day, and more than 100,000 had done so by July.[44] Hungary started building the border fence with Serbia. Both states were overwhelmed organizationally and economically. In August 2015, a police crackdown on migrants crossing from Greece failed in North Macedonia, causing the police to instead turn their attention to diverting migrants north, into Serbia.[45] On 18 October 2015, Slovenia began restricting admission to 2,500 migrants per day, stranding migrants in Croatia as well as Serbia and North Macedonia.[46][47] The humanitarian conditions were catastrophic; Refugees were waiting for illegal helpers at illegal assembly points without any infrastructure.[48][49]

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad blamed Europe and the United States for the migrant crisis, saying most of the refugees are fleeing the "terrorism" that he accuses the West of fomenting by supporting elements of the Syrian opposition. Meanwhile, the Syrian government announced increased military conscription, and simultaneously made it easier for Syrians to obtain passports, leading Middle East policy experts to speculate that he was implementing a policy to encourage opponents of his regime to "leave the country".[42]

NATO's four-star General in the United States Air Force commander in Europe stated on the issue of indiscriminate weapons used by Bashar al-Assad, and the non-precision use of weapons by the Russian forces are the reason which cause refugees to be on the move.[50] Gen. Philip Breedlove accused Russia and the Assad regime of "deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve".[50]

Between 2007 and 2011, large numbers of migrants from the Middle East and Africa crossed between Turkey and Greece, leading Greece and the European Border Protection agency Frontex to upgrade border controls.[55] In 2012, immigrant influx into Greece by land decreased by 95 percent after the construction of a fence on that part of the GreekTurkish frontier which does not follow the course of the Maritsa River.[56] In 2015, Bulgaria followed by upgrading a border fence to prevent migrant flows through Turkey.[57][58]

Between 2010 and 2013, around 1.4 million non-EU nationals, asylum seekers and refugees not included, immigrated in the EU each year, while around 750,000 of such non-EU nationals emigrated from the EU in those years, resulting in around 650,000 net immigration each year, but decreasing from 750,000 to 540,000 between 2010 and 2013.[51]

Prior to 2014, the number of asylum applications in the EU peaked in 1992 (672,000), 2001 (424,000) and 2013 (431,000). In 2014 it reached 626,000.[59] According to the UNHCR, the EU countries with the biggest numbers of recognised refugees at the end of 2014 were France (252,264), Germany (216,973), Sweden (142,207) and the United Kingdom (117,161). No European state was among the top ten refugee-hosting countries in the world.[25]

Prior to 2014, the number of illegal border crossings detected by Frontex at the external borders of the EU peaked in 2011, with 141,051 total (sea and land combined).[60]

According to Eurostat, EU member states received over 1.2 million first-time asylum applications in 2015, more than double that of the previous year. Four states (Germany, Hungary, Sweden and Austria) received around two-thirds of the EU's asylum applications in 2015, with Hungary, Sweden and Austria being the top recipients of asylum applications per capita.[61] More than 1 million migrants crossed the Mediterranean Sea in 2015, considerably dropping to 364,000 in 2016.[62] Numbers of arriving migrants fell again in 2017.[63]

In 2010 the European Commission commissioned a study on the financial, political and legal implications of a relocation of migrants in Europe.[64] The report concluded that there were several options for dealing with the issues relating to migration within Europe, and that most member states favoured an "ad hoc mechanism based on a pledging exercise among the Member States".[64]

Article 26 of the Schengen Convention[65] says that carriers which transport people into the Schengen area shall if they transport people who are refused entry into the Schengen Area, be responsible to pay for the return of the refused people, and pay penalties.[66] Further clauses on this topic are found in EU directive 2001/51/EC.[67] This has had the effect that migrants without a visa are not allowed on aircraft, boats or trains going into the Schengen Area, so migrants without a visa have resorted to migrant smugglers.[68] Humanitarian visas are in general not given to refugees who want to apply for asylum.[69]

The laws on migrant smuggling ban helping migrants to pass any national border if the migrants are without a visa or other permission to enter. This has caused many airlines to check for visas and refuse passage to migrants without visas, including through international flights inside the Schengen Area. After being refused air passage, many migrants then attempt to travel overland to their destination country. According to a study carried out for the European Parliament, "penalties for carriers, who assume some of the control duties of the European police services, either block asylum-seekers far from Europe's borders or force them to pay more and take greater risks to travel illegally".[70][71]

Europe needs to fulfil its humanitarian duty, helping those fleeing for their lives, and as a Christian-Democrat, I want to reiterate that is not Christian rights, but human rights that Europe invented. But we also need to better secure our external borders and make sure that asylum rules are used properly and not abused.

Manfred Weber, leader of the European People's Party in the European Parliament.

Slavoj iek identifies a "double blackmail" in the debate on the migrant crisis: those who argue Europe's borders should be entirely opened to refugees, and those who argue that the borders should be closed completely.[72][pageneeded]

European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, Dimitris Avramopoulos, said that the European Commission "does not care about the political cost" of its handling of the migration crisis, because it's there for five years to do its job "with vision, responsibility and commitment" and what drives it "is not to be re-elected", and invited European national leaders to do likewise and stop worrying about reelection.[73][74]

On 31 August 2015, according to The New York Times, Angela Merkel, German Chancellor and leader of the Christian Democratic Union, in some of her strongest language theretofore on the immigrant crisis, warned that freedom of travel and open borders among the 28 member states of the EU could be jeopardised if they did not agree on a shared response to this crisis.[75]

Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republicans and former French president, compared EU migrant plan to "mending a burst pipe by spreading water round the house while leaving the leak untouched".[76] Following German Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to allow tens of thousands of people to enter Germany, Sarkozy criticised her, saying that it would attract even greater numbers of people to Europe, where a significant part would "inevitably" end up in France due to the EU's free movement policies and the French welfare state. He also demanded that the Schengen agreement on borderless travel should be replaced with a new agreement providing border checks for non-EU citizens.[77]

Italian Prime Minister and Secretary of the Italian Democratic Party Matteo Renzi said the EU should forge a single European policy on asylum.[78] French Prime Minister Manuel Valls of the French Socialist Party stated, "There must be close cooperation between the European Commission and member states as well as candidate members."[79] Sergei Stanishev, President of the Party of European Socialists, stated:

At this moment, more people in the world are displaced by conflict than at any time since the Second World War. ... Many die on the approach to Europe in the Mediterranean yet others perish on European soil. ... As social democrats the principle of solidarity is the glue that keeps our family together. ... We need a permanent European mechanism for fairly distributing asylum-seekers in European member states. ... War, poverty and the stark rise in inequality are global, not local problems. As long as we do not address these causes globally, we cannot deny people the right to look for a more hopeful future in a safer environment.[80]

According to The Wall Street Journal, the appeal of Eurosceptic politicians has increased.[81]

Nigel Farage, leader of the British anti-EU United Kingdom Independence Party and co-leader of the eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group, blamed the EU "and Germany in particular" for giving "huge incentives for people to come to the European Union by whatever means" and said that this would make deaths more likely. He claimed that the EU's Schengen agreement on open borders had failed and that Islamists could exploit the situation and enter Europe in large numbers, saying that "one of the ISIL terrorist suspects who committed the first atrocity against holidaymakers in Tunisia has been seen getting off a boat onto Italian soil".[82][83] In 2013, Farage had called on the UK government to accept more Syrian refugees,[84] before clarifying that those refugees should be Christian due to the existence of nearer places of refuge for Muslims.[85]Marine Le Pen, leader of the French far-right National Front and co-president of the former Europe of Nations and Freedom (EMF) grouping, accused Germany of looking to hire "slaves" by opening its doors to large numbers of asylum seekers among a debate in Germany whether there should be exceptions to the recently introduced minimum wage law for refugees.[86][87] Le Pen also accused Germany of imposing its immigration policy on the rest of the EU unilaterally.[88] Her comments were reported by the German[89] and Austrian press,[90] and were called "abstruse claims" by the online edition of Der Spiegel.[91] Centreright daily Die Welt wrote that she "exploits the refugee crisis for anti-German propaganda".[92]

Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (a member of the former EMF grouping), who is known for his criticism of Islam, called the influx of people an "Islamic invasion" during a debate in the Dutch parliament, speaking about "masses of young men in their twenties with beards singing Allahu Akbar across Europe".[93] He also dismissed the idea that people arriving in Western Europe via the Balkans are genuine refugees, stating: "Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia are safe countries. If you flee them then you are doing it for benefits and a house."[94]

After the migrant shipwreck on 19 April 2015, Italy's Premier Matteo Renzi spoke by telephone to French President Franois Hollande and to Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat.[95][96] They agreed to call for an emergency meeting of European interior ministers to address the problem of migrant deaths. Renzi condemned human trafficking as a "new slave trade"[97] while Prime Minister Muscat said 19 April shipwreck was the "biggest human tragedy of the last few years". Hollande described people traffickers as "terrorists" who put migrant lives at risk. The German government's representative for migration, refugees and integration, Aydan zouz, said that with more migrants likely to arrive as the weather turned warmer, emergency rescue missions should be restored. "It was an illusion to think that cutting off Mare Nostrum would prevent people from attempting this dangerous voyage across the Mediterranean", she said.[98][99][99][100] Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, called for collective EU action ahead of a meeting in Luxembourg on Monday 20 April.[100][101]

In a press conference, Renzi confirmed that Italy had called an "extraordinary European council" meeting as soon as possible to discuss the tragedy,[102] various European leaders agreed with this idea.[103][104] Cameron tweeted on 20 April that he "supported" Renzi's "call for an emergency meeting of EU leaders to find a comprehensive solution" to the migrant crisis in the Mediterranean.[105] He later confirmed that he would attend an emergency summit of European leaders on Thursday.[106]

On 20 April 2015, the European Commission proposed a 10-point plan to tackle the crisis:[107]

A year after the 10-point plan was introduced[when?], the European Commission also began the process for reforming the Common European Asylum system.

Started in 1999, the European Commission began devising a plan to create a unified asylum system for those seeking refuge and asylum. Named the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), the system sought to address three key problems which consisted of asylum shopping, differing outcomes in different EU Member States for those seeking asylum, and differing social benefits in different EU Member States for those seeking asylum.[108]

In an attempt to address these issues, the European Commission created five components that sought to fulfill minimum standards for asylum:[108]

Completed in 2005, the Common European Asylum System sought to protect the rights those seeking asylum. The system proved to create differing implementation across EU states, building an uneven system of twenty-eight asylum systems across individual states. Due to this divided asylum system and problems with the Dublin system, the European Commission proposed a reform of the Common European Asylum System in 2016.[109]

Starting on 6 April 2016, the European Commission began the process of reforming the Common European Asylum System and creating measures for safe and managed paths for legal migration to Europe. First Vice-President Frans Timmermans stated that, "we need a sustainable system for the future, based on common rules, a fairer sharing of responsibility, and safe legal channels for those who need protection to get it in the EU."[110]

The European Commission identified five areas that needed improvement in order to successfully reform the Common European Asylum System:[110]

To create safer and more efficient legal migration routes, the European Commission sought to meet the following five goals:[110]

On 13 July 2016, the European Commission introduced the proposals to complete the reform of the Common European Asylum System. The reform sought to create a just policy for asylum seekers, while providing a new system that was simple and shortened. Ultimately, the reform proposal attempted to create a system that could handle normal and impacted times of migratory pressure.[111]

The European Commission's outline for reform proposed the following:[111]

The 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck involved "more than 360" deaths, leading the Italian government to establish Operation Mare Nostrum, a large-scale naval operation that involved search and rescue, with some migrants brought aboard a naval amphibious assault ship.[113] In 2014, the Italian government ended the operation, calling the costs too large for one EU state alone to manage; Frontex assumed the main responsibility for search and rescue operations. The Frontex operation is called Operation Triton.[114] The Italian government had requested additional funds from the EU to continue the operation but member states did not offer the requested support.[115] The UK government cited fears that the operation was acting as "an unintended 'pull factor', encouraging more migrants to attempt the dangerous sea crossing and thereby leading to more tragic and unnecessary deaths".[116] The operation consisted of two surveillance aircraft and three ships, with seven teams of staff who gathered intelligence and conducted screening/identification processing. Its monthly budget was estimated at 2.9million.[114] Amid an upsurge in the number of sea arrivals in Italy from Libya in 2014, several European Union governments refused to fund the Italian-run rescue option Operation Mare Nostrum, which was replaced by Frontex's Operation Triton in November 2014. In the first six months of 2015, Greece overtook Italy in the number of arrivals, becoming in the summer of 2015 the starting point of a flow of refugees and migrants moving through Balkan countries to Northern European countries, mainly Germany and Sweden.

The Guardian and Reuters noted that doubling the size of Operation Triton would still leave the mission with fewer resources than the previous Italian-run rescue option (Operation Mare Nostrum) whose budget was more than 3 times as large, had 4 times the number of aircraft[117] and had a wider mandate to conduct search and rescue operations across the Mediterranean Sea.[118]

On 23 April 2015, a five-hour emergency summit was held and EU heads of state agreed to triple the budget of Operation Triton to 120million for 20152016.[119] EU leaders claimed that this would allow for the same operational capabilities as Operation Mare Nostrum had had in 20132014. As part of the agreement the United Kingdom agreed to send HMSBulwark, two naval patrol boats and three helicopters to join the Operation.[119] On 5 May 2015 it was announced by the Irish Minister of Defence Simon Coveney that the L Eithne would also take part in the response to the crisis.[120] Amnesty International immediately criticised the EU response as "a face-saving not a life-saving operation" and said that "failure to extend Triton's operational area will fatally undermine today's commitment".[121]

On 18 May 2015, the European Union decided to launch a new operation based in Rome, called EU Navfor Med, under the command of the Italian Admiral Enrico Credendino,[122] to undertake systematic efforts to identify, capture and dispose of vessels used by migrant smugglers.[123] The first phase of the operation, launched on 22 June, involved naval surveillance to detect smugglers' boats and monitor smuggling patterns from Libya towards Italy and Malta. The second phase, called "Operation Sophia", started in October, and was aimed at disrupting the smugglers' journeys by boarding, searching, seizing and diverting migrant vessels in international waters. The operation uses six EU warships.[124][125] As of April 2016, more than 13,000 migrants were rescued from the sea and 68 alleged smugglers were arrested in the course of the operation.[126]

The EU seeks to increase the scope of EU Navfor Med so that a third phase of the operation would include patrols inside Libyan waters in order to capture and dispose of vessels used by smugglers.[127][128][129] Land operations on Libya to destroy vessels used by smugglers had been proposed, but commentators note that such an operation would need a UN or Libyan permit.

The Greek islands (Kos, Leros, Chios, for example) serve as main entry points into Europe for Syrian refugees.[130]

The entry routes through the Western Balkan have experienced the greatest intensity of border restrictions in the 2015 EU migrant crisis, according to The New York Times[45] and other sources, as follows:

Beginning in 1999, the Tampere Agenda outlines the EU's policy on migration, presenting a certain openness towards freedom, security, and justice.[140] This agenda focuses on two central issues, including the development of a common asylum system and the enhancement of external border controls.[140] The externalization of borders with Turkey is essentially the transferring of border controls and management to foreign countries, which are in close proximity to EU countries.[141] The EU's decision to externalize its borders puts significant pressure on non-EU countries to cooperate with EU political forces.[142]

Communication on Global Approach to Migration and Mobility" (GAMM). The Migration Partnership Framework introduced in 2016 implements greater resettlement of migrants and alternative legal routes for migration.[140] The Migration Partnership Framework's goals aligns with the EUs efforts throughout the refugee crisis to deflect responsibility and legal obligations away from EU member states and onto transit and origin countries.[140][142] By directing migrant flows to third countries,[clarification needed] policies place responsibilities on third countries[clarification needed].[142] States with insufficient resources are forced (by law) to ensure the protection of migrants rights, including the right to asylum.[142] Destination states under border externalization strategies are responsible for rights violated outside their own territory.[142] Fundamental rights of migrants can be impacted during the process of externalizing borders.[142] For example, child migrants are recognized to have special status under international law, yet during transit, they are vulnerable to trafficking and other crimes.

Between 11 and 12 November 2015, Valletta Summit on Migration between European and African leaders was held in Valletta, Malta, to discuss the migrant crisis. The summit resulted in the EU setting up an Emergency Trust Fund to promote development in Africa, in return for African countries to help out in the crisis.[143]

According to the Washington Post, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's public pledges (at a time of diplomatic standoff with the government of Hungary at the beginning of September, when tens of thousands of refugees were attempting to cross Hungarian territory without getting processed for asylum application in the country) that Germany would offer temporary residency to refugees, combined with television footage of cheering Germans welcoming refugees and migrants arriving in Munich,[144] persuaded large numbers of people to move from Turkey up the Western Balkan route.[42]

On 25 August 2015 according to The Guardian 'Germany's federal agency for migration and refugees' made it public, that "The #Dublin procedure for Syrian citizens is at this point in time effectively no longer being adhered to". During a press conference, "Germany's interior minister, Thomas de Maizire, confirmed that the suspension of the Dublin agreement was "not as such a legally binding act", but more of a "guideline for management practice".[145] Around 24 August 2015, while thousands of migrants tried to reach Western Europe through the Balkans, a considerable proportion of them fleeing the Syrian Civil War, and noticing that most of the burden of migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea fell on the peripheral southern EU member states Greece and Italy, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to news media, decided to no longer follow the rule under the 'Dublin' EU regulations for asylum seekers holding that migrants "can apply for asylum only in the first EU member state they enter"[146] (The 'Dublin' regulation actually holds that the migrant should apply for asylum in the first EU country where he was formally registered.)[citation needed] Germany ordered its officers to also process asylum applications from Syrians if they had come through other EU countries.[146] In the night of 4 September 2015, Merkel decided that Germany would admit the thousands of refugees who were stranded in Hungary,[147] in sweltering conditions,[148] and whom the Hungarian prime minister Orban had sent to the Austrian border.[149] With that decision, she reportedly aimed to prevent disturbances at the German borders.[149] The days following that 4 September, tens of thousands of refugees traveled from Hungary via Vienna into Germany.[147][148]

Analyst Will Hutton for the British newspaper The Guardian on 30 August 2015 praised Merkel's decisions on migration policies: "Angela Merkel's humane stance on migration is a lesson to us all The German leader has stood up to be counted. Europe should rally to her side She wants to keep Germany and Europe open, to welcome legitimate asylum seekers in common humanity, while doing her very best to stop abuse and keep the movement to manageable proportions. Which demands a European-wide response ()".[150]

The EU proposed to the Turkish government a plan in which Turkey would take back every refugee who entered Greece (and thereby the EU) illegally. In return, the EU would accept one person into the EU who is registered as a Syrian refugee in Turkey for every Syrian sent back from Greece.[152] 12 EU countries have national lists of so-called safe countries of origin. The European Commission is proposing one, common EU list designating as 'safe' all EU candidate countries (Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey), plus potential EU candidates Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo.[153] The list would allow for faster returns to those countries, even though asylum applications from nationals of those countries would continue to be assessed on an individual, case-by-case basis.[153] International Law generated during the Geneva Convention states that a country is considered "safe" when there is a democratic system in a country and generally there is: no persecution, no torture, no threat of violence, and no armed conflict.[154]

In November, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoan reportedly threatened to send the millions of refugees in Turkey to EU member states if it was left to shoulder the burden alone.[155] On 12 November 2015, at the end of the two-day summit in Malta, EU officials announced an agreement to offer Turkey 3 billion over two years to manage more than 2 million refugees from Syria who had sought refuge there, in return for curbing migration through Turkey into the EU.[156] The 3 billion fund for Turkey was approved by the EU in February 2016.[157]

In January 2016, the Netherlands proposed that the EU take in 250,000 refugees a year from Turkey in return for Turkey closing the Aegean sea route to Greece, but Turkey rejected the plan.[158] Starting on 7 March 2016, the EU met with Turkey for another summit in Brussels to negotiate further solutions of the crisis. An original plan saw for the closing statement to declare the Western Balkan route closed. However, this was met with criticism from German chancellor Angela Merkel.[159] Turkey countered the offer by demanding a further 3 billion in order to help them in supplying the 2.7 million refugees in Turkey. In addition, the Turkish government asked for their citizens to be allowed to travel freely into the Schengen area starting at the end of June 2016, as well as an increased speed in talks of a possible accession of Turkey to the European Union.[160][161] The plan to send migrants back to Turkey was criticized on 8 March 2016 by the United Nations, which warned that it could be illegal to send the migrants back to Turkey in exchange of financial and political rewards.[162]

On 20 March 2016, an agreement between the European Union and Turkey, aiming to discourage migrants from making the dangerous sea journey from Turkey to Greece, came into effect. Under its terms, migrants arriving in Greece would be sent back to Turkey if they did not apply for asylum or their claim was rejected, whilst the EU would send around 2,300 experts, including security and migration officials and translators, to Greece in order to help implement the deal.[163]

It was also agreed that any irregular migrants who crossed into Greece from Turkey after 20 March 2016 would be sent back to Turkey, based on an individual case-by-case evaluation. Any Syrian returned to Turkey would be replaced by a Syrian resettled from Turkey to the EU, preferably the individuals who did not try to enter the EU illegally in the past and not exceeding a maximum of 72,000 people.[152] Turkish nationals would have access to the Schengen passport-free zone by June 2016 but this would not include non-Schengen countries such as the UK. The talks aiming at Turkey's accession to the EU as a member began in July 2016, and $3.3 billion in aid was to be delivered to Turkey.[163][164] The talks were suspended in November 2016, following the 2016 Turkish coup d'tat attempt.[165] A similar threat was raised as the European Parliament voted to suspend EU membership talks with Turkey in November 2016: "if you go any further," Erdoan declared, "these border gates will be opened. Neither me nor my people will be affected by these dry threats."[166][167]

Migrants from Greece to Turkey were to be given medical checks, registered and fingerprinted, then bused to "reception and removal" centres.[168][169] and later deported to their home countries.[168] The UNHCR's director Vincent Cochetel claimed in August 2016 that parts of the deal were already de facto suspended because of the post-coup absence of Turkish police at the Greek detention centres to oversee deportations.[170][171]

The UNHCR said it was not a party to the EU-Turkey deal and it would not be involved in returns or detention.[172] Like the UNHCR, four aid agencies (Mdecins Sans Frontires, the International Rescue Committee, the Norwegian Refugee Council and Save the Children) said they would not help implementing the EU-Turkey deal because blanket expulsion of refugees contravened international law.[173]

Amnesty International said that the agreement between EU and Turkey was "madness", and that 18 March 2016 was "a dark day for Refugee Convention, Europe and humanity". Turkish prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that Turkey and EU had the same challenges, the same future and the same destiny. Donald Tusk said that the migrants in Greece would not be sent back to dangerous areas.[174]

On 17 March 2017, Turkish interior minister Sleyman Soylu threatened to send 15,000 refugees to the European Union every month, while Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu also threatened to cancel the deal.[175][176]

On 9 October 2019, the Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria began. Within the first week and a half 130,000 people were displaced. On 10 October it was reported that President Erdoan had threatened to send "millions" of Syrian refugees to Europe in response to criticism of his military offensive into Kurdish-controlled northern Syria.[177] On 27 February 2020, a senior Turkish official said Turkish police, coast guard and border security officials had received orders to no longer stop refugees land and sea crossings to Europe.[178]

European Union members legally obliged to join Schengen at a future date

Countries with open borders

In the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, 26 European countries (22 of the 28 European Union member states, plus four European Free Trade Association states) joined together to form an area where border checks on internal Schengen borders (i.e. between member states) are abolished and instead checks are restricted to the external Schengen borders and countries with external borders are obligated to enforce border control regulations. Countries may reinstate internal border controls for a maximum of two months for "public policy or national security" reasons.[179]

The Dublin regulation determines the EU member state responsible to examine an asylum application to prevent asylum applicants in the EU from "asylum shopping", where applicants send their applications for asylum to numerous EU member states to get the best "deal" instead of just having "safety countries",[180] or "asylum orbiting", where no member state takes responsibility for an asylum seeker. By default (when no family reasons or humanitarian grounds are present), the first member state that an asylum seeker entered and in which they have been fingerprinted is responsible. If the asylum seeker then moves to another member state, they can be transferred back to the member state they first entered. This has led many to criticise the Dublin rules for placing too much responsibility for asylum seekers on member states on the EU's external borders (like Italy, Greece, Croatia and Hungary), instead of devising a burden-sharing system among EU states.[181][182][183]

In June 2016, the Commission to the European Parliament and Council addressed "inherent weaknesses" in the Common European Asylum System and proposed reforms for the Dublin Regulation.[184] Under the initial Dublin Regulation, responsibility was concentrated on border states that received a large influx of asylum seekers. A briefing by the European Parliament explained that the Dublin Agreement was only designed to assign responsibility, not effectively share responsibility.[185] The reforms would attempt to create a burden-sharing system through several mechanisms. The proposal would introduce a "centralized automated system" to record the number of asylum applications across the EU, with "national interfaces" within each of the Member States.[186] It would also present a "reference key" based on a Member State's GDP and population size to determine its absorption capacity.[186] When absorption capacity in a Member State exceeds 150 percent of its reference share, a "fairness mechanism" would distribute the excess number of asylum seekers across less congested Member States.[186] If a Member State chooses not to accept the asylum seekers, it would contribute 250,000 per application as a "solidarity contribution".[186] The reforms have been discussed in European Parliament since its proposal in 2016, and was included in a meeting on "The Third Reform of the Common European Asylum System Up for the Challenge" in 2017.[187]

Under the Dublin Regulation, an asylum seeker has to apply for asylum in the first EU country they entered, and, if they cross borders to another country after being fingerprinted, they can be returned to the former. As most asylum seekers try to reach Germany or Sweden through the other EU countries in order to apply for asylum there, and as 22 EU countries form the borderless Schengen area where internal border controls are abolished, enforcement of the Dublin Regulation became increasingly difficult during late summer 2015, with some countries allowing asylum seekers to transit through their territories and other countries renouncing the right to return them back or reinstating border controls within the Schengen Area to prevent them from entering. In July 2017, the European Court of Justice upheld the Dublin Regulation, despite the high influx of 2015, giving EU member states the right to deport migrants to the first country of entry to the EU.[188]

Countries responded in different ways:

The table "Expenditure on refugees (caseload) 20152016 (2016 summary)" summarizes the 1.7 million asylum applicants in 2015 will cost 18 billion in maintenance costs in 2016. The total 2015 and 2016 asylum caseload will cost 27.3 billion (27.296 in Mil.) in 2016. In the "Expenditure on refugees (caseload) 20152016 (2016 summary)," Sweden will bear the heaviest cost.[207]

The escalation in April 2015 of shipwrecks of migrant boats in the Mediterranean led European Union leaders to reconsider their policies on border control and processing of migrants.[100] On 20 April the European Commission proposed a 10-point plan that included the European Asylum Support Office deploying teams in Italy and Greece for joint processing of asylum applications.[208] Also in April 2015 German chancellor Angela Merkel proposed a new system of quotas to distribute non-EU asylum seekers around the EU member states.[209]

In September 2015, as thousands of migrants started to move from Budapest to Vienna, Germany, Italy and France demanded asylum-seekers be shared more evenly between EU states. Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker proposed to distribute 160,000 asylum seekers among EU states under a new migrant quota system to be set out. Jean Asselborn, the Luxembourg foreign minister, called for the establishment of a European Refugee Agency, which would have the power to investigate whether every EU member state is applying the same standards for granting asylum to migrants. Viktor Orbn, the prime minister of Hungary, criticised the European Commission warning that "tens of millions" of migrants could come to Europe. Asselborn declared to be "ashamed" of Orbn.[210][211] German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that EU members reluctant to accept compulsory migrant quotas may have to be outvoted: "if there is no other way, then we should seriously consider to use the instrument of a qualified majority".[212]

Yes

Abstention

No

Non-EU state

Leaders of the Visegrd Group (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) declared in a September meeting in Prague that they will not accept any compulsory long-term quota on redistribution of immigrants.[213] Czech Government's Secretary for European Affairs Tom Prouza commented that "if two or three thousand people who do not want to be here are forced into the Czech Republic, it is fair to assume that they will leave anyway. The quotas are unfair to the refugees, we can't just move them here and there like a cattle." According to the Czech interior minister Milan Chovanec, from 2 September 2015, Czech Republic was offering asylum to every Syrian caught by the police notwithstanding the Dublin Regulation: out of about 1,300 apprehended until 9 September, only 60 decided to apply for asylum in the Czech Republic, with the rest of them continuing to Germany or elsewhere.[214]

Czech President Milo Zeman said that Ukrainian refugees fleeing War in Donbass should be also included in migrant quotas.[215] In November 2015, the Czech Republic started a program of medical evacuations of selected Syrian refugees from Jordan (400 in total). Under the program, severely sick children were selected for treatment in the best Czech medical facilities, with their families getting asylum, airlift and a paid flats in the Czech Republic after stating clear intent to stay in the country. However, from the initial 3 families that had been transported to Prague, one immediately fled to Germany. Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka stated that this signals that quota system will not work either.[216]

On 7 September 2015, France announced that it would accept 24,000 asylum-seekers over two years; Britain announced that it would take in up to 20,000 refugees, primarily vulnerable children and orphans from camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey; and Germany pledged US$6.7 billion to deal with the migrant crisis.[217][218] However, also on 7 September 2015, both Austria and Germany warned that they would not be able to keep up with the current pace of the influx and that it would need to slow down first.[219]

On 22 September 2015, European Union interior ministers meeting in the Justice and Home Affairs Council approved a plan to relocate 120,000 asylum seekers over two years from the frontline states Italy, Greece and Hungary to all other EU countries (except Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom which have opt-outs). The relocation plan applies to asylum seekers "in clear need of international protection" (those with a recognition rate higher than 75 percent, i.e. Syrians, Eritreans and Iraqis) 15,600 from Italy, 50,400 from Greece and 54,000 from Hungary who will be distributed among EU states on the basis of quotas taking into account the size of economy and population of each state, as well as the average number of asylum applications. The decision was taken by majority vote, with the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia voting against and Finland abstaining. Since Hungary voted against the relocation plan, its 54,000 asylum seekers would not be relocated for now, and could be relocated from Italy and Greece instead.[220][221][222][223] Czech Interior Minister tweeted after the vote: "Common sense lost today."[224] Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico is threatening legal action over EU's mandatory migrant quotas at European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.[225] On 9 October, the first 20 Eritrean asylum seekers were relocated by plane from Italy to Sweden,[226] following the EU prerequisite fingerprinting in Italy as the first member country of asylum registration.[227]

On 25 October 2015, the leaders of Greece and other states along Western Balkan routes to wealthier nations of Europe, including Germany, agreed to set up holding camps for 100,000 asylum seekers, a move which German Chancellor Merkel supported.[228]

On 12 November it was reported that Frontex had been maintaining combined asylum seeker and deportation hotspots in Lesbos, Greece since October.[229]

On 15 December 2015, the EU proposed taking over the border and coastal security operations at major migrant entry pressure points, via its Frontex operation.[230]

By September 2016 the quota system proposed by EU has been abandoned for the time being, after staunch resistance by Visegrd Group countries.[231][232]

By 9 June 2017, 22,504 people have been resettled through the quota system, with over 2000 of them being resettled in May alone.[233] All relevant countries participate in the relocation scheme with exception of Austria, Denmark, Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary,[234] against whom the European commission has consequentially launched sanctions procedure only to the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary.[235]

Historically, migrants have often been portrayed as a "security threat," and there has been much focus on the narrative that terrorists maintain networks amongst transnational, refugee, and migrant populations. This fear has been exaggerated into a modern-day Islamist terrorism Trojan Horse in which terrorists hide among refugees and penetrate host countries.[236] In the wake of November 2015 Paris attacks, Poland's European affairs minister-designate Konrad Szymaski stated that he sees no possibility of enacting the EU refugee relocation scheme,[237] saying, "We'll accept [refugees only] if we have security guarantees."[238]

The attacks prompted European officialsparticularly German officialsto re-evaluate their stance on EU policy toward migrants, especially in light of the ongoing European migrant crisis.[239][240] Many German officials believed a higher level of scrutiny was needed, and criticised the position of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, but the German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel defended her stance, and pointed out that a lot of migrants were fleeing terrorism.[240]

In January 2016, 18 of 31 men suspected of violent assaults on women in Cologne on New Year's Eve were identified as asylum seekers, prompting calls by German officials to deport convicted criminals who may be seeking asylum;[241] these sexual attacks brought about a fresh wave of anti-immigrant protests across Europe.[242] Merkel used Wir schaffen das during the violence and crime by the immigrants in Germany, including the 2016 Munich shooting, the 2016 Ansbach bombing, and the Wrzburg train attack.[243]

In 2016, according to the Italian daily newspaper La Stampa, officials from Europol conducted an investigation into the trafficking of fake documents for ISIL. They identified fake Syrian passports in the refugee camps in Greece that were destined to supposed members of ISIL, in order to avoid Greek government controls and make their way to other parts of Europe. Also, the chief of Europol said that a new task force of 200 counter-terrorism officers would be deployed to the Greek islands alongside Greek border guards in order to help Greece stop a "strategic" level campaign by ISIL to infiltrate terrorists into Europe.[244]

In October 2016 Danish immigration minister Inger Stjberg authorities reported 50 cases of suspected radicalised asylum seekers at asylum centres. The reports encompassed everything from adult Islamic State sympathisers celebrating terror attacks to violent children who dress up as IS fighters decapitating teddy bears. Stjberg expressed her consternation at asylum seekers ostensibly fleeing war yet simultaneously supporting violence. Asylum centres having detected radicalisation routinely report their findings to police. The 50 incidents were reported between 17 November 2015 and 14 September 2016.[245][246]

In February 2017, British newspaper The Guardian reported that ISIL was paying the smugglers fees of up to $2,000 USD to recruit people from refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon child migrants in a desperate attempt to radicalize children for the group. The reports by counter-extremism thinktank Quilliam indicate that an estimated 88,300 unaccompanied childrenwho are reported as missingwere at risk of radicalization by ISIL.[247]

In December 2015, Hungary challenged EU plans to share asylum seekers across EU states at the European Court of Justice.[248] The border has been closed since 15 September 2015, with razor wire fence along its southern borders, particularly Croatia, and by blocking train travel.[249] The government believes that "illegal migrants" are job-seekers, threats to security and likely to "threaten our culture".[250] There have been cases of immigrants and ethnic minorities being attacked. In addition, Hungary has conducted wholesale deportations of refugees, who are generally considered to be allied with ISIL.[251] Refugees are outlawed and almost all are ejected.[251]

There can be instances of exploitation at the hands of enforcement officials, citizens of the host country, instances of human rights violations, child labor, mental and physical trauma/torture, violence-related trauma, and sexual exploitation, especially of children, have been documented.[252]

On October, 2015 German refugee attack plot was foiled by German police which was a plot by neo-Nazis to attack a refugee center with explosives, knives, a baseball bat and a gun. Nazi magazines and memorabilia from the Third Reich, flags emblazoned with banned swastikas were found. According to prosecutor goal was "to establish fear and terror among asylum-seekers". The accused claimed to be either the members of Die Rechte, or anti-Islam group Pegida (Ngida).[253]

In November 2016, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor issued a report regarding the humanitarian situation of migrants into Greece. It hosts 16.209 migrants on its island and 33.650 migrants on the mainland, most of whom are women and children. Because of lack of water, medical care and security protection witnessed by the Euro- Med monitor team- especially with the arrival of winter, they are at risk of serious deterioration in health, mostly children and pregnant women. 1,500 refugees were, accordingly, moved into other places since their camps were deluged with snow, but relocation of the refugees always came too late after they lived without electricity and heating devices for too long. It also showed that there is a lack of access to legal services and security protection to the refugees and migrants in the camps; there is no trust between the resident and the protection offices, paving a path for some people to report crimes and illegal acts in the camps. In addition, the migrants are subject to regular xenophobic attacks, fascist violence, forced strip searches at the hands of residents and police and detention. The women living in the Athens settlements and the Vasilika, Softex and Diavata camps feel worried about their children as they may be subjected to sexual abuse, trafficking and drug use. As a result, some of the refugees and migrants commit suicide, burn property and protest. Finally, it clarified the difficulties the refugees face when entering into Greece; more than 16,000 people are trapped while waiting for deportation on the Greek islands of Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Leros and Kos, and the number of residents is double the capacity of the five islands.[254]

In August 2017 dozens of Afghani asylum seekers made a demonstration in a square in Stockholm against their pending deportations. They were attacked by a group of 1516 men who threw fireworks at them. Three protesters were injured and one was taken to hospital. None were arrested.[255]

According to the UNHCR, the number of forcibly displaced people worldwide reached 59,500,000 at the end of 2014, the highest level since World War II,[258] with a 40 percent increase taking place since 2011. Of these 59.5million, 19.5million were refugees (14.4million under UNHCR's mandate, plus 5.1million Palestinian refugees under UNRWA's mandate), and 1.8million were asylum-seekers. The rest were persons displaced within their own countries (internally displaced persons). The 14.4million refugees under UNHCR's mandate were around 2.7million more than at the end of 2013 (a 23 percent increase), the highest level since 1995. Among them, Syrian refugees became the largest refugee group in 2014 (3.9million, 1.55million more than the previous year), overtaking Afghan refugees (2.6million), who had been the largest refugee group for three decades. Six of the ten largest countries of origin of refugees were African: Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and Eritrea.[25][259]

The rest is here:

European migrant crisis - Wikipedia

What the Hell Is Happening With Migrants in Greece? – VICE

KASTANIES, Greece Migrants in Turkey threw a hail of rocks and tear gas at Greek security forces just over the border, their yells punctuated by the sound of grenades the Greeks detonated in response. The Greeks held a thin green line behind their riot shields, firing rifles into the air intermittently to keep the migrants from rushing the border fence further along the flat woods and farmland marking the edge of Europe.

A few days earlier, on March 4, Turkeys autocratic leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, had opened his countrys border to Greece so the millions of migrants desperate to enter Europe could stream into the land between the countries. It was a move he had long threatened and finally made good on after the death of 33 Turkish soldiers in an airstrike in Syria.

Erdoan claimed his action was intended to save the hundreds of thousands of refugees from Russian and Syrian bombing in the Turkish-backed rebel and jihadi-dominated enclave of Idlib. In reality, the displaced people of Idlib remain trapped in Syria by the worlds second-longest wall, with Turkish gendarmes ordered to use lethal force to keep the border closed.

The migrants at the border, who had been bussed to the border city of Edirne by free coaches organized by the Turkish government, were instead from long-standing migrant and refugee communities in Istanbul. Mostly Afghans, many from the countrys Hazara Shia minority, they had been falsely advised by Turkish officials and state media that the road to Europe was finally open.

Only a few weeks later, on March 27, Turkish police burned down the migrant tents. They gave the risk of coronavirus spreading as the reason.

Erdoan had long used opening Turkeys border to Greece as a trump card in negotiating with his European neighbors. The arrival of more than 1 million largely Syrian refugees and other migrants to Europe, primarily to Germany, during the 2015 migrant crisis had dramatically unsettled European politics. People across the continent swung their support to anti-migrant rightwing populist parties, transforming European politics in a historic shift that is still far from over.

They are invaders. They're not migrants any more.

With Europe diplomatically weak and internally divided, Erdoan had effectively used the migrants as a tool to blunt criticism of his 2019 invasion of northeastern Syria, and to extract money at will from fearful EU leaders. As Greek defense minister Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos toured the border village of Kastanies, reassuring anxious locals that the army would hold the line, it seemed likely that European leaders would fold once again.

My grandson is a soldier, Minister, an anxious elderly Greek woman told Panagiotopoulos, grasping his hand. Greece starts from here. This message should be passed to Europeans. Europe is not here at the moment. Only Greece is. VICE News asked Panagiotopoulos whether he expected personnel from the EU border agency Frontex to deploy in support of the Greek state. Frontex is here. Thats all I have to say now, he responded. But I guess well take it up with the [EU] ministers conference when we meet in Zagreb in a couple of days.

While EU leaders coordinated their response, Greeces new conservative government deployed reinforcements of troops and police from across the country. Locals cheered as military convoys rolled through the towns and cities of this formerly quiet border region.

The Greek government as well as the majority of Greeks did not believe they were witnessing a migrant crisis. Instead, they saw the conflict at the border as an act of hybrid warfare in which Turkey was weaponizing migrants and refugees in order to destabilize Greece. Erdoan has repeatedly said that both this region of Western Thrace as well as the eastern islands most affected by the migrant crisis should be reconquered by Turkey, the imperial ruler of these borderlands until just over a century ago.

Videos posted by migrants on social media and others distributed to journalists by the Greek government showed Turkish security forces in uniform and plain clothes firing tear gas at Greek forces as migrants attempted to storm the border fence. Others showed a Turkish armored vehicle attempting to pull down the border fence by tugging on an attached cable.

As northeastern Greece began to feel like a region at war, the Greek armed forces declared the border region a closed military zone. The army began conducting live fire exercises along the border.

Military checkpoints sprang up along the wetlands of the Evros delta, and they restricted access to journalists. At one checkpoint, VICE News saw a dozen or so dejected South Asian men sitting huddled at the feet of Greek soldiers, waiting to be returned to Turkey in a previously illegal pushback now that asylum claims had been suspended by the Greek government.

In the border villages along the Evros river, hundreds of local farmers, hunters, and military reservists assembled into border patrol groups. Soldiers at newly-established military checkpoints flagged them down with torches in the darkness, checking their names before permitting them to proceed with their patrol.

In the village of Feres, a mile from the Turkish border, VICE News spoke to a group of young volunteers just before they headed on patrol. We fear that they're going to send more, the thousands that won't be controllable any more, Georgios Goranis told VICE News. The more they gather on the border, the worse it gets, added his friend Christos Chtazis, because the villagers are outnumbered by the immigrants. They are approximately 30,000 and we are only 8,000 people

They are not just illegal aliens, they are invaders, concluded Theodoros Siourdakis, Yes, now they are invaders. They're not migrants any more.

A Greek soldier guards captured migrants near Poros in the Evros region. Photo: Daphne Tolis/VICE News.

Further along the border, migrants and refugees who crossed illegally were scrambling up forested hillsides in the foothills of the Rhodopi mountains along the Bulgarian frontier, taking the long route around the checkpoints in hope of travelling freely on to Northern Europe.

In the freezing rain, shrouded by mountain fog, Moroccan migrant Nail Boukhreis showed VICE News his soaked and blistered feet, explaining he was travelling from Turkey to Thessaloniki, Greece, and from Thessaloniki to Europe, God willing. Im looking for work. Work here is good. There are no jobs in Morocco, he said, before trudging off into the mist.

But the chances of Boukhreis reaching Western Europe are slim. With asylum claims suspended, the Greek government had announced that day, with the EUs blessing, that economic migrants would be deported straight home to their country of origin once detained.

In the mountain village of Mikro Dereio, VICE News spoke with four Moroccan migrants sitting huddled together on the stone floor of the village coffee shop, watched over by three Greek security forces in ski masks, holding staves and pistols. They told us they were from Syria, one white-bearded elderly man in the coffee shop told VICE News derisively, as he watched proceedings with his fellow villagers. But I knew they were lying. Statistics released to journalists by the Greek government that day asserted that of the 252 migrants and refugees who had then been detained by Greek security forces, 64% were from Afghanistan and 19% were from Pakistan, with only 4% being the Syrians claimed by the Turkish government less than the number of Turkish nationals detained, at 5% of the total.

With the border holding, and the origins of the vast majority of the migrants undermining the humanitarian claims of Turkeys government-controlled media, the European Union mainstream slowly swung around to support the Greek side.

If you see a Greek person here, you feel he wants to slaughter you.

The EUs top officials were helicoptered on a tour of the border by the Greek government, before holding a press conference in a church hall at Kastanies. In an unexpectedly unequivocal show of support for the Greek government, the EU leaders pledged their full support for Greeces zero tolerance policy at the border, with the president of the EU Council, Ursula von der Leyen effectively the continental blocs president declaring that Greece was Europes aspida, or shield. Whirring blades of low-flying aircraft punctuated their speeches dramatically.

Furthermore, Von der Leyen said, the EU would provide 700 million euros in funding for border infrastructure, half of it immediately, along with the promise of 100 EU Frontex reinforcements, a helicopter, and patrol boats.

For Greeces conservative government, it was a powerful vindication of their border policy; for Europe, it was the first chance since Brexit for the EU to demonstrate its common purpose and solidarity in the face of a major crisis. VICE News asked Greeces prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, if he was happy with the support from Europe. It is the best we could have hoped for, he replied.

Europes new hard line on mass migration from Turkey is boosted by the failure of the EUs 2016 deal with Turkey.

That agreement, overseen by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, gave Ankara 6 billion euros in exchange for preventing migrant boats from leaving Turkish beaches for Greek shores. It outlined that refugees already in Greece would be resettled in the rest of the EU, while economic migrants ineligible for asylum would be returned to Turkey. The EU would take one Syrian refugee from Turkish camps in exchange for every economic migrant returned.

The deal was a failure from the start. European nations openly hostile to external migration like Hungary and Poland refused to accept any refugees, while others theoretically open to the idea, like France, exploited loopholes to take as few as possible. A tiny fraction of the arrivals in Greece have been resettled in other European countries.

Almost no failed claimants were returned to Turkey. And the numbers of migrants sailing from Turkey to Greece began to steadily climb again, doubling in the last year alone.

As a result, eastern Greek islands like Lesvos, Chios, and Samos have been turned into the European Unions open-air detention camps, with more than 40,000 migrants and refugees living in squalid conditions in makeshift shanty towns on the edges of island villages. Local Greeks complain of a dramatic rise in crime as destitute migrants break into their homes to steal household goods, furniture, and even floorboards to burn for warmth and construct dwellings.

Refugees and migrants land on the Greek island of Lesvos on March 2, 2020. (Photo by ARIS MESSINIS/AFP via Getty Images)

Popular concern over demographic change as a result of mass migration is toppling liberal governments across the continent. But nowhere has experienced the phenomenon as rapidly or as dramatically as Greeces eastern islands.

On the island of Samos, the capital Vathy has a population of 7,000 and is now neighbored by a sprawling refugee camp of 7,000 migrants and refugees. They live in desperate conditions on the wooded slopes overlooking the town.

In the vast shanty town, the sounds of sawing and hammering punctuate birdsong as migrants and refugees chop down olive and pine trees to construct huts, shops, and bakeries. Refugees and migrants from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as economic migrants from Senegal, Gambia, Nigeria, and Ghana live in unhygienic conditions huddled against each other in a camp designed for just 680 people. The migrants say interethnic violence and petty crime is rampant. Problems between Afghans and Arabs always break out at the food queue, Omar Abu Zeraa, a young refugee from the Syrian city of Aleppo, told VICE News. I tell you, if this happened in any country, there would be problems. Seven thousand Greeks live here, along with 7,000 migrants. Think about it. They were only 7,000 people living in peace.

Things have got so bad now, if you see a Greek person here, you feel he wants to slaughter you.

Samos' migrant shanty town overlooks the island's capital of Vathy. (Photo by Giles Clarke/Getty Images)

While VICE News was on Samos, migrants and refugees demanding passage to the mainland held a series of demonstrations. In one, African migrants hurled rocks at Greek riot police, who quelled the protest with tear gas. Although they had been prevented from entering the town center to demonstrate, in the town below, shops closed early and Greek mothers hurried away from work to pick up their children from nursery.

At another impromptu demonstration by Arab migrants and refugees in the towns picturesque main square, angry local Greeks, including the mayor of eastern Samos, Giorgos Stantzos, shooed the demonstrators away. Then locals attacked the VICE News crew, smashing one of our two cameras and throwing the other in the sea.

The new threat of coronavirus outbreaks in the squalid refugee camps has exacerbated the already fraught situation. On Thursday, Greece announced it would quarantine a refugee camp on the mainland after 20 people tested positive for COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.

Mayor Stantzos is terrified of the explosive situation. The problem is huge, and I fear every minute. Maybe nothing will happen, maybe anything can happen, a simple accident inside the camp might result in uncontrolled situations, and, sorry to say, human victims.

The European borders must be better protected, more effectively, with a strong Frontex presence, he told VICE News. Europe must demand Frontex be placed on the Turkish coast. The boats must not sail. And the management should take place in Turkish camps, not European ones.

We can't stand European countries to simply exhibit their solidarity by only paying, he added. They finance and give money in order for what to happen? To turn a whole country into an open prison?

Last month, the Greek government attempted to establish new closed camps on the islands, but gave up after villagers on Lesvos besieged the riot police in their military base, forcing them to withdraw and the plan to be abandoned.

After Erdogan brought the slow-burning crisis at Greeces borders to the brink of undeclared war, the already-frayed hospitality of Greek islanders evaporated completely.

On the island of Lesvos, bands of local vigilantes established checkpoints to prevent migrants from walking into the town. They also harassed, beat, and intimidated the mostly German NGO workers, journalists, and activists in the area, whom Greeks blame for exacerbating the situation.

This problem grows and spreads like cancer across all of Greece.

The Greek government announced that no new asylum claims filed after March 1 would be examined, and that any migrants arriving on the islands would be transferred to the mainland for immediate return to their countries of origin.

Before this new policy, refugees whose asylum claims had been accepted were already being transferred to the mainland in small numbers. In the snow-shrouded mountain village of Samarina, in Greeces northern Pindus mountain range, hundreds of migrants were being hosted in abandoned ski resorts, causing unease among the locals, who belong to Greeces dwindling Vlach ethnic minority.

You cant bring 300 people to a region with 25 or 30 [local] people, Samarina shopkeeper Michalis Papoulias told VICE News. Germany, Belgium, Holland, the advanced countries, they took the people they wanted to take.

And now what? We are left with people that have nothing, people who are hunted, who are tired. What can we do with them? We cant absorb them, we dont have jobs, we are dealing with an economic crisis apart from the immigration that affects all of Europe. But we dont have the infrastructure to absorb all of these people. So, one thing leads to the other. And this problem grows and spreads like cancer across all of Greece.

With the first deployment of European reinforcements, including Dutch military police, Austrian police special forces, and Polish and Hungarian border guards, the crisis on the border has begun to abate. But the effects of Erdogans gambit in Europe will last far longer. The zero tolerance approach to illegal border crossings by migrants and refugees alike, for which Hungarian leader Viktor Orban was condemned by the European mainstream in 2015, has now become the policy of the European Union as a whole.

European voters already uncomfortable with mass immigration and skeptical that the flows of migrants pressing into the continent were legally entitled to refugee status feel buoyed by the European mainstreams new response.

Mainstream European conservatives, like the EPP group which represents the European Parliaments largest bloc, have rushed to associate themselves with the new hard-line border policies. They see a chance to outflank the populist right, which threatens their hold on power, and to convince European voters they can be trusted to stem the migration from outside the continent.

It is likely that, in pressuring EU leaders for his own short-term ends, Erdogan has done great, and perhaps permanent, damage to the entire system of asylum for genuine refugees.

Erdogan gambled that he could deploy migrants as moral blackmail against European leaders. Instead, as European leaders deploy border guards to Greece and build stronger, higher border walls against Turkey, it appears likely that all he has achieved is the construction of a hard-line Fortress Europe as the continental blocs new official policy.

Cover: Migrants and refugees scuffle with riot police on the Greek island of Lesvos, on March 3, 2020. (Photo by ANGELOS TZORTZINIS / AFP) (Photo by ANGELOS TZORTZINIS/AFP via Getty Images)

Read the original post:

What the Hell Is Happening With Migrants in Greece? - VICE

Church on Greek island attacked by illegal immigrants – Greek City Times

Local people on the Eastern Aegean island of Lesvos continue to be shocked by the behaviour of illegal immigrants, particularly those from the infamous Moria migrant camp to the north of Mytilene.

The main entrance to the Saint Raphael church close to the Moria migrant camp was attacked.

As seen in the photos, the wooden door was broken.

There was also other material damage done to the church.

This latest incident on Lesvos comes off the back of many other shocking events in the past few days, including two gangs of Afghani immigrants battling each other, African immigrants ridiculing and coughing on police in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic,and thousands of olives trees being destroyed, as reported by Greek City Times.

This is not the only time a church has been attacked by illegal immigrants on Lesvos. The last known incident occurred only last month when another church was completely trashed.

About half of the 50,000 illegal immigrants on Lesvos are kept at the Moria camp that is supposed to host only 3,000 people. A rise in criminality has hit the island since the migrant crisis began in 2015 when Turkey allowed hundreds of thousands of people to leave and enter Greece illegally, whether via land or sea.

Lesvos, as an island of only 90,000 citizens, has been one of the most hardest hit areas of Greece. Also sharing the brunt of the migration crisis is the island of Chios.

In November last year, illegal immigrants on Chios attacked the Church of Agios Haralambos in Chalkios village for a third time. Villagers were left in horror as they saw the Altar burned.

As a deeply religious society, these attacks on churches are shocking to the Greek people and calls to question whether these illegal immigrants seeking a new life in Europe are willing to integrate and conform to the norms and values of their new countries.

These continued attacks has ultimately seen the people of Lesvos, who were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2016, become increasingly frustrated by the unresolved situation that has restricted and changed their lives as they no longer feel safe on their once near crime-free island.

See the original post:

Church on Greek island attacked by illegal immigrants - Greek City Times

After this crisis, remember the NHS is not drained by migrants, but sustained by them – The Guardian

Amged el-Hawrani thought he just had the flu. He thought maybe he was just a bit run down or hadnt been sleeping enough. By the time he was admitted to hospital with breathing difficulties and put on a ventilator, it was already too late. Three weeks later, he died of Covid-19. He was 55 years old.

The NHS ear, nose and throat (ENT) consultant never knew he had the virus. He was sedated long before the test came back positive, after twice coming back negative. The diagnosis until the final test result was a stubborn bilateral pneumonia. A physician to the end, his last words before being sedated were why are they taking so long, they need to intubate me.

As an ENT surgery consultant he was especially vulnerable to catching Covid-19, and was likely exposed to patients whose complaints were coronavirus-related: loss of taste and smell, breathing issues and persistent coughs. He wasnt even aware he needed protective gear, his brother Amal told me, he was just doing his job.

El-Hawrani was one of six boys whose Sudanese parents settled in the UK in 1975. Their late father, a consultant radiologist, moved to the UK to gain access to the latest equipment and research in his speciality, and passed on his passion for medicine to his eldest sons. He had no hobbies, he was always studying, always reading, he loved it, Amal recalls.

The love for the vocation extended outside of the family, as the El-Hawrani home became a hub for other Sudanese doctors in training. Those who needed advice and guidance on their professional journey, or just needed a place to stay as they did so, found refuge in the El-Hawrani home, rent free. The commitment to family and medicine was passed down. Most of my dads time was dedicated towards his family, said El-Hawranis son, Ashraf, the rest was dedicated towards his profession.

Today, the close-knit family, and the wider medical community of friends around it, cannot even seek some small comfort in mourning together. Alongside the shock of El-Hawranis death now lies the dread of the disease infecting his mother, who is in her late 70s. Her sons have isolated themselves from her and each other, and turned away mourners.

El-Hawrani was the second frontline doctor to die of the virus. The first was also of Sudanese origin; Dr Adil El Tayar, an organ transplant specialist who volunteered in an A&E department in the Midlands to help fight the virus. Two of the four children he left behind are also NHS doctors.

Following their deaths, the contributions of El-Hawrani and El Tayar and their families to our healthcare system have been held up as exemplars. Yes, they were gifted and selfless, but they were not exceptions. They were part of a community of NHS doctors all over the UK, who are foreign born, or born to immigrants.

In the 1970s and 80s, El-Hawrani and his siblings grew up in a country matter-of-factly hostile to people of colour. His younger brother Amal recalls being told by other children that he couldnt play with them because he was brown. Thirty years later, the UK is more diverse, but the antipathy towards immigrants has crept upwards, voiced by politicians instead of schoolchildren. The narrative they set for the country in general, and the NHS in particular, is that they are being drained by immigrants who put nothing in and take everything out. This was always a lie, but it has never been a more discreditable one than now.

Alongside El-Hawrani and El Tayar in the honour roll now sit Dr Alfa Saadu, who was also volunteering, this time in Hertfordshire, one of the counties worst hit by the virus; general practitioner Dr Habib Zaidi; and Areema Nasreen, an acute medical unit nurse. The numbers do, and have always told the truth: 44% of medical staff are BAME. For nurses and midwives, it is one in every five, and in some areas such as London, it is four in 10.

Not that the government has made it easy for non-EU migrant doctors to work in the UK. They have to navigate a complex maze of Home Office requirements to renew expensive work visas which are often tied to jobs which are themselves dependent on budgetary constraints. A single fallen domino in this chain ejects a sorely needed doctor from the country.

In its newfound affection for the NHS and such doctors, the government has now shown hitherto unattainable bureaucratic agility, and decided that all nurses, doctors, paramedics and healthcare professionals will have their visas automatically renewed for a year free of charge.

Many of these migrant doctors will be paying a hefty annual NHS surcharge for the privilege of using an NHS they staff, in addition to paying tax and national insurance contributions. This surcharge is set to rise from 400 to 624 a year this October. The health secretary, Matt Hancock, who in November declared that the NHS surcharge was going to be extended because its the National Health Service not the International Health Service, on Thursday saluted those NHS staffers who perished as people who came to this country to make a difference.

These are likely to be temporary face- and life-saving platitudes and measures. When its back to business as usual, when the NHS is used as a political pawn, and blame for its underfunding is placed at the feet of migrants, remember Amged El-Hawrani and all the others who fell on its frontline to save lives. Remember their names, their faces, their stories and the families they left behind. And remember that the NHS is not drained by migrants, but sustained by them.

Here is the original post:

After this crisis, remember the NHS is not drained by migrants, but sustained by them - The Guardian