Monthly Archives: February 2020

It reminds one of the famous quote of former American President Abraham Lincoln, You cannot fool all the people all the time, as one sees the long agitation of the Block Grant (BG) teachers in Odisha against the hypocrisy of the State Government.

As the disgruntled teachers have again warned the Government of taking to streets after being befooled by the Government, wary of saving its skin, the Government has now grown vindictive. In a recent circular by the Higher Education Department, it has been told that if any teacher remains on leave for participating in any agitation, it will be viewed seriously leading to curtailment of salary, pre-mature retirement and even withholding of the financial grant to the institution. However, the move has raised eyebrows as it not just exposes the autocratic attitude of the Government meant to suppress agitation by the teachers by hook or by crook, but a breach of the their fundamental rights protesting an injustice.

As per reports, when the Government framed the 2017 Grant-In-Aid (GIA) order, it was clarified that the teachers and employees under Block Grant system would be entitled to all benefits, including DA, yearly increment and salary hike as per 7th Pay Commission recommendations. Though the new GIA policy was based on the declaration of CM Naveen Patnaik to abolish Block Grant system in order to regularise the beneficiaries but the GIA 2017 order was framed in such a manner that there was no scope for regularisation of service.

Again, before the last general elections, these employees under the banner of the Odisha School, College Teachers and Employees United Forum held a dharna before the State Assembly for fulfilment of their genuine demands like service conditions, equal pay for equal work, abolition of all anomalies in GIA order 2017 , extension of GIA to newly opened schools and colleges, pension benefits to employees and enhancement of pay as per the 7th Pay Commission rules etc.

To satisfy them, the BJD leaders had assured them of fulfilling the demands if their party came to power. Accordingly, these employees declared their support and felicitated CM Patnaik. But after the win of the BJD and Patnaik forming the Government for the fifth consecutive time, the ruling party reneged from its commitments.

While this has led to large scale resentment among the teachers and employees and they are preparing for a next bout of agitation, in order to cut them to size, the Higher Education Minister has implemented 5T principles under which 7-hour duty and biometric attendance were made mandatory. And, as per its latest move to foil agitation of the teachers, the circular issued on February 18 has banned any leave for participating in agitation against the Government.

To create division among the teachers community, the Government is going to make different pay structures for 488 category and 662 category of college teachers and employees. Commissioner cum Secretary of Higher Education Saswat Mishra has warned not to sanction any leave to any employee saying leave is not a matter of right.

On the other hand, convenor of 662 category colleges Golak Nayak said that in a democratic country, peaceful demonstration is a fundamental right of an individual. But the Higher Education Department in Odisha is making a mockery of it by mounting pressure on the Principals not to let off their employees for agitation, said Nayak, adding that he would move the court of law soon for breach of the fundamental rights of the teachers community.

Go here to see the original:

BG teachers now denied right to protest - Daily Pioneer

In his latest book, University of Denver law professor Csar Cuauhtmoc Garca Hernndez outlines why immigration prisons should be abolished, and how the country can move forward without them.

Can you imagine a world without immigration prisons? In his latest book, Migrating to Prison: Americas Obsession With Locking Up Immigrants, University of Denver law professor, author, and immigration expert, Csar Cuauhtmoc Garca Hernndez, takes a sobering look at Americas vast immigration prison network, how it works, and how the United States can break free from it. While the book is part history lesson, it is also part indictment of Democratic and Republican leadership and policies. Weaved throughout are the stories of the real people whose lives have been forever changed by Americas immigration prison system. Rather than call for reform, Garca Hernndez believes that the only equitable solution is the outright abolition of immigration prisons.

Over the last several months, Garca Hernndez has been touring the country to promote his book. During his stop in Denver, I had the chance to sit down with him to talk about growing up near the border, what drove him to write about immigration prisons, and what gives him hope about Americas immigration system.

You grew up in McAllen, Texas, right along the border, as the child of an immigrant family. How has your childhood influenced your work as an immigration lawyer and professor?

Garca Hernndez: My experience as someone who was born and had his first exposure to the world in this border community in south Texas and north Mexico really is why everything else that Ive done has taken the trajectory that it has. As a kid, my initial exposure to the law was the border patrol. They got to decide who it is who gets to cross the bridge that united two communitiesthe bridge that my family and I regularly traversed for everything from lunch to weddings. Seeing the power the people who worked as border patrol agents had and knowing that they carried some mysterious legal authority was for me an incredibly formative series of experiences.

In the book you write that at one point it looked like immigration prisons were going to become extinct. How did we get from there to where we are now?The moment in the 1950s when the Eisenhower administration decided to shut down most of the immigration prisons seems like a piece of fiction today. But that was the policy of the United States government until the Carter administration began to re-inaugurate detention as an important piece of immigration law enforcement. What happened to shift the governments response was that the face of migration literally changed. We started to see a lot of migrants from Asia. We started to see an increase of dark-skinned and poor migrants, particularly from Haiti and Cuba. The Cubans that left in the 1980s were poor people that were often described in the media as being criminal, and the governments response was to take a very strong arm approach to that threat.

You say that Americas immigration system isnt broken, its working exactly as its been designed to work. Can you elaborate on that a bit?If what we want is to help people abide by the immigration system, we could do that without locking them up behind barbed wire and making them go through the immigration court system without the benefit of lawyers. On the contrary, what we have is a system of prisons spread all around the countryfrom Miami to Seattle, Maine to San Diegothat effectively subverts the possibility of people who are going through the process to do so on their best footing. In large part, [its] because these facilities are in remote locations, difficult for lawyers to get to. Since the Reagan administration, weve been piloting projects that have supported people going through the process with lawyers, social workers, with case managers. Those have time and again had astonishingly high success rates of making sure people show up to their hearings.

Instead of calling for reform, you argue for outright abolition of immigration prisons. Why the distinction?I dont think you can ever justify locking up people simply for standing on a piece of land that is on the wrong side of a border. If what were concerned about is people actually being dangerous, thats what the police are for. At best, locking people up while theyre going through the immigration process is redundant, at worst it subverts the rule of law.

What is the greatest challenge to abolishing immigration prisons?The willingness of people to imagine it as a feasible option on the table. My driving goal in writing Migrating to Prison was to inject into the conversation about immigration law enforcement in 2020 the possibility of running an immigration law system that does not require locking up a single soul.

Do you see any glimmer of hope in our current immigration moment?There is more than just a glimmer of hope. The small democratic process is a messy process but it is one that requires hope. In the 1950s, the Eisenhower administration had the courage to shut down the immigration prison system that existed at the time. Its time for us in 2020 to be equally courageous.

See the article here:

In Migrating to Prison, Imagining a World Without Immigration Prisons - 5280 | The Denver Magazine

In 1810, at the start of the Mexican War of Independence, just over 10 percent of the population of New Spain was Afro-Mexican, according to the Spanish census. They were the descendants of the hundreds of thousands of Africans the Spanish transported to Mexico for slave labor.

By the early nineteenth century, almost all Afro-Mexicans were of mixed race (Indian, African, European) and termed negroes, mulattos, and/or mestizos. Only about one in ten was still bound in slavery, but all suffered under the burden of a caste system that saw pure Spaniards, criollos,at the top.

Abolition of slavery and the caste system were both stated goals of early independence leaders like Miguel Hildago y Costilla, often called the Father of the Nation, and Jos Maria Morelos y Pavn. The latter had African roots.

Mexicos African-descended people, writes scholar Ted Vincent, had a special incentive to fight, were encouraged to join the struggle, and provided many participants and leaders to the cause of Mexican independence.In the war against Spain the decrees of revolutionary leaders induced Afro-Mexican participation by making minority rights integral to the struggle [while] the decrees against slavery and the caste system alienated many white Mexicans from the independence cause.

After a long struggle, Mexico won its independence in 1821, but slavery wasnt formally abolished in the new nation until 1829. The delay was, of course, political: the independence seekers were a politically mixed lot. The leader who first came to power in 1821 was General Agustn de Iturbide, a conservative who spent most of the war fighting for the Spanish before joining the pro-independence side; he declared himself emperor. It was some time before the more liberal, republican forces came to power.

The president who did finally issue the decree ending slavery was of African descent himself. Vicente Guerrero had been a mule-train driver who rose to generalship in the War of Independence. He was the new nations second president, briefly reigning before being overthrown in a conservative coup. But in less than a year in office, this man formalized abolition.

Vincent, building on the work of earlier American and Mexican historians, shows that Afro-Mexicans played an outsized role in the independence struggle. In addition to leaders like Morelos and Guerrero, there were foot soldiers. In a struggle where switching sides was a big part of the war because most of the Spanish forces were conscripted locals, Afro-Mexicans conscripted by the Spanish switched to the freedom side more often than did other Mexicans.

This history, however, has been obscured, partlybecause insurgent politics were aimed at minimizing race to maximize unity. If anything was to be advertised, it was interconnectedness, as in making it known that General Guerrero, who was visually of African background, spoke many Indian languages and worked well with Indians.

This Afro-Mexican heritage stayed obscure, at least until more recent times. Some of the early nations laws highlighted the importance of racial equality. One banned the use of racial categories in government documents, including baptism, marriage, and death records. The subsequent lack of racial counts by census takers in Mexico is one reason little is known of Black Mexico, Vincent writes.

There is no gainsaying, however, that Mexico abolished slavery three and a half decades before the United States. Notably, however, President Guerrero couldnt enforce Mexicos anti-slavery law north of the Rio Grande. American settlers, bringing their system of chattel slavery from the South into that part of Mexico, had grown too powerful. These settlers would break away from Mexico in 1836, declaring a new slave republic before joining the rest of the United States in 1845 as a slave state. They called it Texas.

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

By: Ted Vincent

The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 79, No. 3 (Summer, 1994), pp. 257-276

The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History

Here is the original post:

Black Mexico and the War of Independence - JSTOR Daily

So the Labour Party is about to turn 120. And what has it done?

It was responsible for the National Health Service, anti-racism laws, slum clearance, social housing, decriminalisation of homosexuality, abolition of the death penalty, equal pay, the minimum wage, devolution, the end of conflict in Northern Ireland, the Human Rights Act and the first climate change act in history. Not bad, for a party that wasn't in power for 90 of those years.

But for each there was a powerful narrative - a wrong that simply had to be corrected. Today's Labour Party is choked by its own mythology, searching for purpose with a succession of leaders without a story voters could hear.

After losing four general elections in a row, it's about to choose the person to reverse their inward spiral. Keir Starmer, named after the party's founder, is favourite to win, and has so far trodden a cautious path that has yet to set the world alight.

But in 1945 Labour won a landslide with the boldest offer it has ever made - to end the 5 'Great Evils' of want, squalor, ignorance, unemployment and disease. It was a huge and inspiring pledge, and despite being little different to the sort of thing many parties promised before and since, was made with such commitment that voters were convinced.

After 4 years of Brexit, the voter is bereft. The Tories are all over the shop, with 3 PMs in 5 years all on radically different platforms that have divided their party. Boris Johnson won an 80-seat majority with a 3-word policy that would destroy the economy. He promised Red Wall voters he'd level up, and now can't look them in the eye as their votes get washed away.

According to the Office of National Statistics' latest assessment of 'social capital', 37% of us trusted the government in 2015. Last year, that figure had dropped to 19%. We have become disassociated from politics, turned off by tribalism that preaches only to the choir.

Labour's resurgence can come - will only come - if it finds a story more powerful than the fear peddled by Tories. It could do worse than take a leaf out of Dominic Cummings' book, and make a brash, fearless offer to do something radical to the system.

But rather than offering to break the machine, Labour should pledge to make it do more. The narrative that is most demonstrably a bad idea is austerity. And the thing the system should and must do better is social care. The logic therefore is obvious: the dream that Labour must weave is to cut the cuts, and announce that it is time to care.

Critics will say it's impossible to persuade people used to tales of Labour profligacy, and mad Leftie ideas from the past, that more spending is a good idea. Pessimists will point out state social care was a key plank of the Labour manifestos of Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband, and Jeremy Corbyn, to no avail. But perhaps they didn't do it properly, and perhaps it wasn't time.

The NHS was talked about for years before it happened, too. It took a war to make us all feel the same. Brexit, and Trumpism, and a PM grossly unable to take responsibility even for his own children, never mind the country's, may be enough to make us all willing to listen to a different song.

There are 5 million carers in the UK, whose sacrifice for loved ones, relatives, friends and neighbours is worth about 132billion to the economy, according to Carers UK. Despite their best efforts, those who need social care suffer from local authority funding cuts, a postcode lottery of community nurses and unmet needs. A quarter of official requests for help are refused.

That all builds up into a massive burden for the services we do have. Longer stays in hospital, more calls to ambulance services, more falls, more visits to A&E. Almost three-quarters of carers become mentally ill as a result, and 61% physically so. It's thought 600 people a day leave employment to become carers, many for only short periods at the end of someone's life.

But the loss of tax revenue and productivity is immense, as is the cost to the NHS. Throw in the fact the care industry - those actually paid, professionally, for this - has more people leaving it every year than any other sector, and you have a financial crash waiting to happen when a growing need meets with a constantly-declining ability to provide.

This week the Tories trumpeted an immigration cap which will decimate the care industry's ability to provide cheap EU workers. Some have claimed this will drive up wages in the care sector, increasing skills and career opportunities. Even if this is true, it'll drive up costs for the ultimate employers - council taxpayers, and homeowners, all over the country.

At the moment anyone with assets over 23,250 has to sell their home to pay for care. Those with less are funded by the local council. But this is subject to local demographics, with some authorities facing heftier bills for older communities, and the only way they can pay for it is to increase council tax.

Also this week, it was announced that the majority of councils will increase their household demands by the maximum of 4%. And all to pay for a service in which the richer, and less ill, are overcharged, in order to provide sub-standard care for the poorer, and more ill. The profit motive of private business removes all hope of fairness.

Priti Patel said the care industry should employ some of the "8million economically inactive" in the UK. Several million of those are out of work because they NEED social care. Others are children, prisoners, or pensioners. And even if every one of the 1.3million people the Government counts as officially unemployed and of working age were recruited as carers, that industry currently has 1.5m staff. We'd still be short, of both people and options.

One newspaper reports today that a minister said: "If we accept the premise that it's the government's job to look after people's parents in homes, we'll end up paying for a second NHS."

But it would cost just 4% of what the NHS will this year. The King's Fund calculates a National Care Service offering free personal care to all who need it - help with washing, dressing, eating, getting out of bed - would be 6billion. The IPPR thinks it would be even less.

And in return, 1 in 7 of the UK workforce could go back to work. The NHS would regain capacity. People would not get so ill, and not cost as much when they do. That same newspaper said "the PM intends to take a few years to consider all this, and see how things develop". That's disastrous indecision. Younger people are less likely to own homes, to fund their own care, and to be in a position to provide it for their parents. The bomb is ticking.

This is a 2-word policy. We care. You care. Labour cares. That narrative would cut through, that story would sell.

The Tories produce bogeymen, then fight them in a pretence of defending voters. Labour needs to be ambitious and show it can find radical solutions to the real nightmares we face.

Read the rest here:

Labour can smash the Tories - but only by being bold - Mirror Online

Robert Clarke, a senior advocate of Nigeria, says death sentence will not stop corruption because the act of stealing runs in the blood of Nigerians.

In an interview with the Punch, the lawyer said good governance remains the solution to curbing corruption and improve the economy.

He said corruption is strengthened by the perception of some Nigerians who view political positions as a money-spinning venture.

Whether it is capital punishment or not, a crook would always be a crook. Most of these things are in the blood, he said.

Somebody who wants to steal has it in the blood and some Nigerians have imbibed the custom of believing that when they are working for government, they are there to steal. If you are made a commissioner tomorrow, all your relations are looking forward to getting contracts from you.

So, we believe its a money-spinning venture. Sentencing people to death will not stop people from stealing. its in the blood of Nigerians to steal. Once there is good governance, the propensity to steal would reduce.

Clarke called for the abolition of death sentence, saying most governors refuse to ensure its effectiveness as a result of their religious beliefs.

He recommended a minimum of 20 years imprisonment as an alternative to capital punishment.

When a mechanic has power supply to work in his workshop and a tyre repairer has electricity to do his job, when will he have the time to dupe others? Nigeria is so great, with about 200 million people, he said.

Can you imagine if we have one singlet and briefs factory in Nigeria? Do you know the market it would have? We import everything. Whereas if most of our politicians who are stealing money can set up singlet and pants factories in every geo-political zone, the market is there, but we all just believe in stealing.

We should abolish death sentence and make it a minimum of 20 years imprisonment. I believe somebody who killed at the age of 36 and is sentenced to 20 years and comes back at the age of 56 should have learnt a lesson, rather than keep them there.

Some are afraid to sign a death warrant or they have religious phobia that you shouldnt take life when you dont make one. Then, let us agree to cancel death penalty in our books and make it 20 years imprisonment.

Read more:

Robert Clarke: Death sentence wont stop corruption, its in the blood of Nigerians - TheCable

The government has this week published a policy statement on the UKs points-based immigration system, confirming that from 1 January 2021 free movement will be replaced with a points-based system which will apply to EU and non- EU citizens alike.

We comment below on the new rules, the absence of an immigration route for low skilled workers and also a new immigration category which will be introduced for the most highly skilled workers who will not need a job offer to come to the UK.

It is proposed that the key immigration routes will be opened from Autumn 2020 to allow migrants time to apply ahead of the new rules coming into effect on 1 January 2021. So there is limited time to prepare.

Medium and highly skilled route for those with a job offer

Minimum salary thresholds will be lowered

Following recommendations from the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers coming to the UK for work is to be lowered from 30,000 to 25,600, with no regional variations on this. The minimum salary level has been dropped to take account of the fact that some medium skilled jobs will be paid lower salaries than those higher skilled jobs which are currently eligible for sponsorship. Employers will have to pay the higher of the (i) going rate for the specific job that they want to sponsor as set out by UKVI; or (ii) this minimum salary threshold.

In some cases, employees will be able to earn less than this minimum rate and still qualify under the rules. This is because additional points can be awarded for those who have a PhD which is relevant to the job, a PhD in a STEM subject which is relevant to the job, or a job which is on the shortage occupation list and these additional points will compensate for a lower salary.

New entrants

The salary requirements for so called new entrants will be set at 30% less than the rate for experienced workers in any occupation. That means that a minimum salary threshold of 17,920 will apply to them (although a higher going rate may have to be paid depending on the job). It is likely that the criteria and rules in terms of which employees are eligible for a new entrant salary will be changed. Currently these rules apply to employees under 26 years old and those switching from student status.

Medium skilled jobs will be eligible in addition to highly skilled

The skills threshold is to be reduced from RQF6 (which is broadly graduate level) to RQF3 (broadly A level or equivalent), meaning that medium skilled jobs will become eligible for sponsorship. This is good news for employers who will welcome the flexibility to sponsor additional roles.

No immigration cap

There will be no immigration cap on the number of skilled workers coming to the UK (currently this is limited to 20,700 per year for Tier 2 (General)). This will mean that employers will have increased certainly about being able to sponsor someone from the outset of the process. It will also avoid delay as currently as a result of the immigration cap, employers have to apply each month and wait for a decision about whether a certificate of sponsorship has been granted.

Abolition of the RLMT

The resident labour market test will no longer apply. This is good news and will avoid employers having to advertise for a period of 28 days and it will also avoid having to keep evidence such as screenshots of adverts and other paperwork relating to the recruitment and selection process. It should mean a more speedy and efficient process and employers will benefit from more certainty in knowing that they will be able to sponsor a particular employee at an earlier stage of the process.

How will the points requirements work?

Applicants will need to demonstrate that they have a job offer from an approved sponsor; that the job offer is at the required skill level; and that they speak English. Migrants will require to reach a total of 70 points to be eligible to apply, but unlike the previous system applicants will be able to trade characteristics. So, for example, if someone earns less than the required minimum salary threshold, but no less than 20,480, they may still be able to come and work in the UK if they can demonstrate that they have a job offer in a specific shortage occupation, as designated by the MAC (currently the list includes civil engineers, medical practitioners, nurses and psychologists), or that they have a PhD relevant to the job. Over time the Home Office may add additional attributes which can be traded against a lower salary.

New immigration category for highly-skilled workers without a job offer

From January 2021, the Global Talent route which was introduced from 20 February 2020 will be extended to EU citizens on the same basis as non-EU citizens. The Global Talent visa is for talented and promising individuals in specific sectors who will be able to enter the UK without a job offer if they have the required level of points and are endorsed by a relevant and competent body. This scheme has recently been expanded to be more accessible to those with a background in STEM subjects: see our previous blog.

The Government is also going to create a broader unsponsored route within the points-based system to run alongside the employer-led system. This will allow a small number of the most highly-skilled workers to come to the UK without a job offer. More details will become available in the coming year as this immigration route is not yet fully developed.

What about lower-skilled workers?

There will be no immigration route available for lower-skilled workers (other than for example, the categories for youth mobility and the seasonal agricultural worker scheme which already exist). This will be a significant concern for employers who recruit a significant number of EU workers in low skilled jobs. Once the Brexit transition period ends, there would appear to be limited options available to such employers to replace this source of labour, other than to recruit from the UK labour market.

The Government has estimated that 70% of the existing EU workforce already in the UK would not meet the requirements of the skilled worker route. This demonstrates that there is likely to be a gap that will not be filled going forward by the new points system.

Employers intending to sponsor migrants for the first time should apply for a sponsor licence now. Otherwise if they wait until they need to recruit someone, they may face considerable delays. There is likely to be an increase in the number of employers applying for a sponsor licence over the coming months and this could potentially lead to a back log. Once a sponsor licence has been obtained, it is valid for a 4 year period.

What it means for me?

The immigration rules are a radical departure from the current system of freedom of movement- and there are some important differences from the current Tier 2 rules. Although there has been some relaxation of the rules for skilled workers, the fact that there will be no route for the lower-skilled is significant and will be a concern for businesses in sectors such as hospitality and leisure, the care sector and food processing. Businesses need to identify any potential recruitment gaps now and decide how best to plug them.

Employers should also budget for increased visa and associated costs (that are not currently relevant for EU workers prior to 31 December 2020). Those costs could be significant for those who recruit a significant number of overseas workers and can amount to several thousand pounds per head.

See the article here:

Details of the new points-based immigration system from 1 January 2021 announced - Lexology

As the Democratic primary race gathers pace ahead of Novembers US presidential election, Extra.ie has everything you need to know about the frontrunning candidates to challenge the incumbent US President Donald Trump, continuing with Joe Biden.

As former Vice President to Barack Obama from 2009 to 2017, Joe Biden was initially seen as a strong candidate for the Democratic nomination.

But his support has been sliding, and the 77-year-old put in disappointing performances in the Iowa caucus, coming fourth, and the New Hampshire primary, coming fifth.

At 77, Joe Biden joins Bernie Sanders, Michael Bloomberg and Elizabeth Warren among the host of veteran candidates running for the Democratic ticket.

Born to a wealthy Catholic family in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Joe Biden has ancestral roots in Ireland and England. The financial situation of the family of four deteriorated during Bidens early life, with his fathers difficulty in finding work resulting in a move to Delaware.

Biden had a very successful high school career, serving as student president, captaining the school football team to victory and achieving high academic results. Biden graduated from the University of Delaware in 1956 with a degree in history and political science.

Biden subsequently went on to study law in the Syracuse University of Law, struggling through a degree he did not enjoy and ultimately gaining admission to the Delaware bar in 1969.

Although Biden allied himself with Republican principles in early life, his opposition to former US President Richard Nixon led him to register as an Independent. In 1969, while working with a Democratic public defender named Sid Balick, Biden was recruited to the Democratic Forum, a group attempting to revitalise the Democratic Party in Delaware.

Biden served as a Democratic county councillor until 1972, at which point he ran successfully for the Senate, despite heavily stacked odds.

Biden ran as a Democratic candidate in the 1988 US Presidential election, seeking to become the youngest US President since John F Kennedy, but withdrew from the race over controversy about an allegedly plagiarised speech. As it turned out, this withdrawal may have saved Bidens life, as he suffered multiple aneurysms in February 1988 that may have proved fatal if he was still on the campaign trail.

Biden remained a senator, serving on the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Biden declared his candidacy for the US Presidential race once more in 2007, losing out on the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, who later appointed him Vice President in his administration, a role Biden retained until Trump took office in 2017.

Biden and his son Hunter played a major role in the impeachment charges brought against Trump, as it was alleged that the US President abused the powers of his office in an attempt to compel Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation into Hunters role on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.

Biden has been married twice. His first wife, Neilia, and the couples one-year-old daughter Naomi were killed in a car accident in 1972. The couple had two other sons, Hunter and Beau. Tragically, Beau also died from brain cancer in 2013. Biden married educator Jill Jacobs in 1977, and the couple have one daughter, Ashley. He remains a practising Roman Catholic.

Biden is generally seen as a moderate Democrat, and his distance from the radicalism of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders identified him for many as a favourable centrist candidate to oppose Trump.

Economically, Bidens proposals have not been as detailed as those of some of his rivals, but he has emphasised his commitment to revitalising and enlarging the middle class, and he has proposed increasing taxation on the wealthy and increasing social spending. Biden has supported raising corporate tax rates, albeit not to pre-2017 levels, and raising the national minimum wage.

Biden does not support Medicare for all, the universal, single-payer health insurance system championed by some of his rivals, but has pledged to build on the Affordable Care Act.

Socially, Biden is generally liberal, supporting abortion access albeit with some limits; increased gun control; the abolition of the death penalty; and the legalisation of marijuana in accordance with state preferences. When it comes to climate and immigration, Biden believes current statutes on illegal entry should remain in place, and supports taxing carbon emissions and paying farmers to adopt more climate friendly practices.

When it comes to foreign policy, Biden is harsh on Chinas abusive trade practices, but has criticised Trumps self-defeating broad tariffs and has called for more targeted measures.

Biden supports increasing defence spending, and supports the continued presence of US troops in Middle Eastern countries including Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

Bidens stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is equivocal. He has criticised Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu for counterproductive and extreme right positions, but has also accused Palestinian leaders of fomenting conflict and baiting Jewish people. 3Biden referred to Bernie Sanders proposal to withdraw US military aid from Israel unless better treatment is afforded to Palestine as bizarre.

Read more from the original source:

Democratic Primary race Everything you need to know about Joe Biden - Extra.ie

Dirs. Marco Dutra, Caetano GotardoGotardo, who edited Brazilian filmmaker Dutras features Hard Labor (Cannes Un Certain Regard 2011) and Good Manners (Locarno 2017), now joins him as co-director of this late-19th-century drama set in Sao Paolo shortly after the abolition of slavery. The film revolves around three women from a family of once-wealthy coffee plantation owners. Sao Paolo-based Dezenove Som e Imogens produces alongside Paris-based Good Fortune Films.Contact:Indie Sales

Dirs.Damiano DInnocenzo, Fabio DInnocenzoItalys DInnocenzo twins return to Berlin two years after their feature debut Boys Cry premiered in Panorama. The self-taught pair now present an ensemble drama, set over the course of one summer, revealing the secrets and lies behind closed doors of a seemingly idyllic Rome suburb: American Beauty, without America or the beauty, as the brothers describe it. Like Boys Cry, Bad Tales (Favolacce) is produced by Rome-based Pepito Produzioni, in co-production with Rai Cinema and Switzerlands Amka Films. The DInnocenzos served as collaborating writers on Matteo Garrones 2018 Cannes hit Dogman.Contact:The Match Factory

Dir.Burhan QurbaniAlfred Dblins 1929 novel one of the key literary works of Germanys Weimar Republic era has been adapted twice before, as the 1931 Phil Jutzi film and a 1980 TV series. This modern-day reworking follows a refugee from Guinea-Bissau struggling to survive in Berlin after illegally crossing by boat from Africa to Europe. Last in Berlin with 2010 Competition entry Shahada, Germany-born Qurbani returns following a 2014 Rome bow for his We Are Young. We Are Strong. Jochen Laube and Fabian Maubach produce for Sommerhaus Filmproduktionen, alongside regular Qurbani collaborator Leif Alexis.Contact:Beta Cinema

Dirs.Ilya Khrzhanovskiy, Jekaterina OertelThe ultra-ambitious Dau art project has already yielded one epic, 330-minute screen work, simply titled Dau, which premiered in Paris in January 2019 as part of an immersive art installation, following a failed attempt to mount the project in Berlin in 2018. This latest exploitation of the material which is based on the life of Soviet scientist Lev Landau and filmed in Ukraine over a two-year period involving hundreds of participants is accompanied by DAU. Degeneration, playing in Berlinale Special.Contact:Coproduction Office

Dir.Tsai Ming-liangMalaysian-Taiwanese maverick Tsai, who has focused on documentaries and VR films in recent years, is back in Competition after an absence of 15 years. His new film, which was shot over four years, follows his regular actor Lee Kang-sheng and Cambodian newcomer Anong Houngheuangsy as they meet, strike up a relationship and share each others loneliness. Tsai won the Berlin Silver Bear for outstanding artistic contribution with The Wayward Cloud in 2005 and the Silver Bear special jury prize for The River in 1997.Contact:Homegreen Films

Dirs.Benoit Delpine, Gustave KervernKervern and Delpine return to the Berlinale having premiered comedy-dramasMammuth in Competition and Saint Amour out of competition in 2010 and 2016 respectively. Their new timely work stars Blanche Gardin, Denis Podalydes and Corinne Masiero as three neighbours who team with a hacker to tap into the servers of their social-media accounts and alter personally inconvenient data. Cult French writer Michel Houellebecq and the directors longtime collaborator Benoit Poelvoorde make special guest appearances. Kervern and Delpine produce the feature under their No Money Productions banner with Sylvie Pialats Les Films du Worso.Contact:Antoine Guilhem, Wild Bunch

Dir.Kelly ReichardtFollowing berths at the 2019 Telluride and New York film festivals, the latest from Reichardt (Certain Women) lands in Berlin. Adapted from the 1820s-set segment of Jon Raymonds twin-timeline 2004 novel The Half-Life, First Cow returns Reichardt to the pioneer western terrain of her 2010 film Meeks Cutoff. John Magaro stars as a cook who signs on to serve a party of fur trappers in the Pacific Northwest, forming a friendship with a Chinese immigrant (Orion Lee). Filmscience, A24 and IAC Films produce.Contact:A24

Dir.Giorgio DirittiDiritti, who moves between fiction and documentary, premiered his last narrative feature There Will Come A Day at Sundance in 2013. Hidden Away (Volevo Nascondermi) tells the story of Switzerland-born artist Antonio Ligabue (1899-1965), known for his wild animal paintings, who lived a lonely and often-mocked life by Italys River Po. Elio Germano, who is also in the DInnocenzo brothers Competition entry Bad Tales, stars as Ligabue. Palomar (Berlinale 2019 entry Piranhas) produces in collaboration with Rai Cinema.Contact:Cristina Cavaliere, Rai Com

Dir.Natalia MetaArguably the hit of the recent Ventana Sur market in Buenos Aires, Metas thriller stars Erica Rivas from Wild Tales, Nahuel Prez Biscayart from 120 BPM (Beats Per Minute) and Cecilia Roth from Pain And Glory in the tale of a traumatised woman who meets a seemingly perfect man, only for him to turn out to be quite the opposite. Argentinas Rei Cine (Zama) produces.Contact:Vicente Canales, Film Factory Entertainment

Dir.Rithy PanhFrench-Cambodian Panh, a survivor of the 1970s Khmer Rouge genocide, makes his Competition debut with Irradiated. His latest documentary is about people who have survived the horrors of war. French producer Catherine Dussart of CDP previously collaborated with Panh on 2013s The Missing Picture, which won the Un Certain Regard award in Cannes and was nominated for the Academy Awards best foreign-language film; 2016s Exile, which premiered as a special screening in Cannes; and 2018s Graves Without A Name, which opened Venice Days.Contact:Playtime

Dirs. Stphanie Chuat, Vronique ReymondNearly a decade after their debut feature The Little Bedroom (2010) premiered at Locarno, and with TV and documentary work in the interim, Swiss writer/director duo Chuat and Reymond present their sophomore fiction feature My Little Sister (Schwesterlein). A Berlin playwright follows her husband to Switzerland, where he manages a private school, but when her twin brother develops leukaemia, she returns to be with him. The cast includes Christian Petzold regular Nina Hoss, alongside Lars Eidinger (TVs SS-GB). Zurich-based Vega Film produces.Contact:Beta Cinema

Dir.Eliza HittmanHaving played to acclaim in the US Dramatic Competition at Sundance, Hittmans third feature after It Felt Like Love and Beach Rats comes to Berlin. The drama follows a pregnant 17-year-old who, as a minor, is unable to have an abortion in her home state of Pennsylvania; she travels to New York City with a cousin, seeking a termination without her family finding out. Focus Features and BBC Films backed the Pastel production, made in association with Tango Entertainment, Mutressa Movies and Cinereach.Contact:Focus Features

Dir.Sally PotterPotter returns three years after The Party premiered in Berlins Competition. Javier Bardem and Elle Fanning star as a father and daughter dealing with the parents troubled mental state one hallucinatory day in New York City. Potters longtime collaborator Christopher Sheppard produces through Adventure Pictures. The film was co-developed by BBC Films and the BFI, which likewise funded alongside HanWay Films, Bleecker Street, Ingenious Media, Chimney Pot Sverige AB and Film i Vst. Bleecker Street has US rights. The cast also includes Salma Hayek and Laura Linney.Contact:HanWay Films

Dir.Philippe GarrelCannes and Venice habitu Garrel breaks his festival habits to premiere a film at the Berlinale for the first time in his 55-year career. The French director revisits the love-triangle dynamic at the heart of many of his previous works. Theatre actor Logan Antuofermo makes his big-screen debut opposite Oulaya Amamra (Divines) and Louise Chevillotte, as a young carpentry apprentice torn between two women, one in Paris, the other in his provincial hometown. In the backdrop, he is also desperate to please his father. The film is lead produced by Paris-based Rectangle Productions.Contact:Antoine Guilhem, Wild Bunch

Dir.Abel FerraraFollowing a Cannes special screening launch for Tommaso last May, the veteran US director is already back on the festival trail with his latest drama. Frequent Ferrara collaborator Willem Dafoe stars as a man who has retreated to a remote, wintry mountain cabin seeking serenity; he then begins a journey by dogsled to the world he once knew. Marta Donzelli and Gregorio Paonessa for Italys Vivo Film produce alongside Philipp Kreuzer and Jrg Schulze for Germanys Maze Pictures, Julio Chavezmontes for Mexicos Piano, and Rai Cinema.Contact:The Match Factory

Dir.Mohammad RasoulofRasoulof has faced censorship challenges in Iran since his second feature Iron Island (2005), and has been sentenced to prison twice for filmmaking activities. But that has not stopped him winning three Cannes Un Certain Regard prizes for Goodbye (2011), Manuscripts Dont Burn (2013) and Man Of Integrity (2017). There Is No Evil presents four interconnected stories, involving a young man serving his military service, a soldier on leave, a beekeeping married couple and a family living with a secret.Contact:Films Boutique

Dir.Christian PetzoldBerlinale regular Petzold, last in the festival two years ago with Transit, reunites with that films co-stars Paula Beer and Franz Rogowski for this modern-day retelling of a myth relating to the titular water nymph. In this version, Undine is a young tour leader in Berlin who connects with an industrial driver. Schramm Film produces, in co-production with Les Films du Losange. Backers include Canal+, Cin+ and French and German national and regional film bodies.Contact:The Match Factory

Dir. Hong Sang-sooHong returns to the Berlinale for the third year in a row with his seventh film starring muse Kim Min-hee, who won a Silver Bear as best actress for On The Beach At Night Alone in 2017. The pair also appeared in Forum last year with Grass. In their latest film, Kim plays a married woman who visits two friends at their homes and runs into a third one at a theatre, but their seemingly friendly conversations contain undercurrents that suggest all might not be well.Contact:Finecut

More here:

Berlin 2020: Screen's guide to the Competition titles - Screen International

Who builds buildings? Thats tradespeople. Theres a whole industry sitting around building our facilities. In one of the cases that we have got, one of our universities is starting a major science precinct ... They are slowing that down while they work out what the economic impact [of the travel ban] will be.

One university is understood to be considering postponing a project worth more than $150 million, expecting the saving could match the revenue lost this semester.

In 2017, the most recent year for which comprehensive national data is available, the 12 universities that account for 80 per cent of Chinese students collectively had $1.47 billion worth of property under construction. The largest developments were at the University of Sydney with $318 million, UNSW with $205 million, UniSA with $272 million and Monash University with $165 million.

Some universities, including UNSW and the University of Queensland, are in the midst of major expansion projects that could be affected by the travel restrictions.

The restrictions currently apply until February 29. How they apply to tertiary students will be reviewed in the coming week, after government medical officials advised there was scope for relaxation subject to the virus being contained and strict health protections being in place in Australia.

That will depend on the growth and containment outside of Hubei [the province where the outbreak originated] in mainland China, Health Minister Greg Hunt said on Saturday.

Loading

If allowed into the country, students would need to self-isolate for 14 days with the support of their host universities. The window for students to begin studies on the ground in Australia is rapidly closing, with the teaching semester getting under way and the end of March looming as a critical deadline for enrolments.

Margaret Sheil, vice-chancellor of QUT, which currently has about 1200 international students stuck offshore, said her university was not as exposed as others, but even so a tight operating surplus of around $20 million this year could be wiped out.

The biggest impact in the longer term, if this was to go on, would be less investment in capital, in facilities, she said.

Professor Sheil pointed to the governments abolition of a $3.9 billion education investment fund, from which the dollars were diverted to a fund for natural disaster responses.

We now dont have that kind of co-funding for capital investment and that would be where Id be focusing, because that would be a longer term, sustained response, she said.

We wont be able to invest in facilities for domestic students in the way that we have unless there is some relief there.

Federal education minister Dan Tehan said the travel ban would have an economic impact, but the government wanted to mitigate it and universities were in strong financial positions.

My hope is, in the short term, in the next two to three weeks, we might start to see some breakthroughs which will mean that some of those contingency plans that some of the universities are having to look at, they might be able to change their plans, he said.

Fergus Hunter is an education and communications reporter for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

Excerpt from:

Universities put major construction projects on ice amid coronavirus financial blow - The Sydney Morning Herald

It advertised salaries of up to $5,000 per week, paid vacations, full health and dental insurance, and tuition subsidies for student employees. The agency advertised online and at London bus stops.

It had a code of ethics for clients and banned unsavoury clients. Customers paid by cash or credit and the agency kept half the gross revenue generated by the escort.

McKay, of the Ontario Court of Justice, released his ruling Friday after a 10-day trial that concluded last June. The case began in London and concluded in Kitchener after McKay was reassigned to a new courthouse.

He found that sex workers on the street are most at risk of violence, that sex work is safer when it moves indoors, and that sex workers are safer when clients are screened, security staff are hired, and their trade is professionally managed.

McKay found that advertising makes prostitution safer by opening up channels of communication, minimizing the risks of violence, and helping sex workers get off the street.

He found that banning advertising and banning people from managing the sex work of others "without coercion" violates the Charter because it increases the risk of injury or death, criminalizes helpful behaviour, and is "grossly disproportionate in its effects on liberty and security of the person."

The ruling dismays an advocate who argues Canada is properly taking aim at prostitution.

"It's astounding," said John Cassells, director of a group called Men Ending Trafficking. "We have a situation now in Ontario where we're protecting pimps, and their Charter rights apparently supersede the rights of victims and vulnerable women and girls to be protected."

Lockyer disagrees that the ruling encourages pimps to traffick vulnerable females.

"This ruling has nothing to do with permitting exploitation. On the contrary. It prevents exploitation by enabling legitimate relationships to be set up that are not explotive," he said.

While police can still lay prostitution charges against escort services, they should seek good advice from a prosecutor before doing so, Lockyer said.

Prosecutors are reviewing the ruling. The Ministry of the Attorney General could not say Friday if it will be appealed.

McKay found that defence experts relied on evidence while prosecution experts were "committed advocates for the abolition of the sex industry." He gave prosecution experts no weight in his ruling.

Defence lawyer Jack Gemmell hopes the ruling persuades the Liberal government to reconsider the prostitution law.

The ruling surprised Osgoode Hall law professor Debra Haak, who earned a PhD studying the role of law in prostitution.

"What it tells me is that this law is complicated, and that this law opens up really important questions about the intersection between people's individual rights under our Charter, and the rights of groups under our Charter," she said.

She said she expects the prostitution law will need to be tested at an appeal court and at the Supreme Court of Canada.

"I imagine in the next week or two there will be a lot of people pointing to this decision and claiming that it stands for certain things," Haak said.

Parliament enacted the law after the Supreme Court found the previous prostitution law unconstitutional in 2013.

jouthit@therecord.com

Twitter: @OuthitRecord

jouthit@therecord.com

Twitter: @OuthitRecord

Read the original:

Prostitution charges dismissed against owners of escort service - TheRecord.com