Monthly Archives: February 2020

The small Western Balkans nation of Montenegro has been rocked by a conflict between the pro-European government and the Serbian Orthodox Church, which is protesting against a new law that makes it obligatory to register church properties.

Protesters fear that the State could confiscate Serbian Orthodox churches or cemeteries. The government of Montenegro rejects this interpretation of the new law.

Andrija Mandic, one of the main pro-Serbian opposition leaders, told Euronews that Serbs in Montenegro were being treated like second-class citizens.

There is a real problem, created by the authorities. Serbs are discriminated against when in comes to investment programs, discriminated by the national education programs, discrimated when it comes to job policy.

Being a Serb, you cannot get key positions in the State administrations, nor in the Army, nor in the police. Right now, on the top of that, we have an attack against our church. The government wants to give a last blow to our existence on these territories where we were living historically."

Such viewpoints are dangerous, according to Andrej Nikolaidis, a Montenegrin novelist, columnist, and political adviser.

Nikolaidis has launched a petition backing the government of Montenegro, signed by leading intellectuals from all over the Western Balkans region.

"I recognise the (same) signs which preceded the wars in Croatia and in Bosnia, Nikolaidis told Euronews.

In this particular situation in Montenegro, such as the narrative about the so-called oppression of the Serbs in Montenegro. Before the war in Croatia, there is a narrative of oppression of Serbs in Croatia, then the war started. Then we were informed that the Serbs were oppressed in Bosnia - and the war in Bosnia started. Then it suddenly appeared that Serbs are also oppressed in Kosovo - then there was a war in Kosovo."

Montenegro was part of the same country as Serbia for nearly 90 years until its independence in 2006.

An estimated 70 percent of Montenegro's population of 620,000 are Orthodox faithful, most of them following Serbian Orthodox Church rites while a small minority follows the non-recognised Montenegrin Orthodox Church.

Under the new law, religious groups unable to provide evidence of ownership risk losing it to the State.

The government says it wants to clarify who owns what and the new law invites religious communities to register their properties.

Read the original post:

Montenegro rocked by dispute over church property - Euronews

February 29, 2020, 2:02 PM

7 min read

BERLIN -- Held in the German capital from Feb. 20 to March 1, the Berlin International Film Festival is taking a darker view of the world, perhaps a reflection on the current state of world affairs, on its 70th anniversary. That focus is apparent in one of the festivals most-awaited premieres, "Berlin Alexanderplatz," an adaptation of the seminal book by Alfred Dblin set in 1920s Berlin.

The original story is of a small-time criminal who, upon being released from jail, tries to live an honest life and avoid the temptations of the corrupt world around him. 40-year-old director Burhan Qurbani, the son of Afghan refugees, brings the story to the present day through the protagonist, Francis, a refugee from Guinea-Bissau who promises to be a good person and make an honest living. Francis, played skillfully by Brazilian actor Welket Bungu, soon gets sucked into a world of gangsters in his quest to gain status and make a life for himself with the means available to him.

Welket Bungue stars in the 2020 film, "Berlin Alexanderplatz," directed by Burhan Qurbani.

One of the more poignant films at the festival is "The Roads Not Taken" by British director Sally Potter. Featuring Salma Hayek, Elle Fanning and Javier Bardem, the story revolves around a mentally ill man reminiscing on his life and the different ways it could have gone. Potter is one of six female directors with films in the competition. Although Berlins film festival has a way to go before gender parity is reached among film contenders, the outlook is better on the management level. According to the festivals diversity data, leadership positions were equally balanced between men and women, as well as members of the executive board.

Salma Hayek and Javier Bardem star in British director Sally Potter's 2020 film, "The Roads Not Taken."

Last year, director Dieter Kosslick signed a gender parity pledge which requires the festival to release information about the gender and race of everyone involved in the festival, from members of the selection committees to casts and crews of participating films.

This years festival also introduced a new category called encounters, which is a platform aiming to foster aesthetically and structurally daring works from independent, innovative filmmakers according to the festivals description, and includes both documentary and fiction films. A standout entry in this category is Servants, by Slovakian director Ivan Ostrochovsk. Set in a seminary in Czechoslovakia during the Cold War in the 1980s, the film tells the story of two young seminarians who must choose between faith and politics as the oppressive regime tries to control the Catholic Church.

The struggle for ideological freedom in the face of oppression is a theme in other films at this years festival. There is no Evil by acclaimed Iranian director Mohammad Rasoulof, a former Cannes winner, tells five stories of people who committed small acts of rebellion while living under a controlling government.

"There Is No Evil," by Iranian director Mohammad Rasoulof premiered at the Berlinale on Feb. 28, 2020, although the director was not allowed to travel to Berlin to attend.

The four stories that make up the film loosely center on Irans death penalty. Although Rasoulof is one Irans most famous directors, his films are banned in the country. In 2011, after his film about censorship, Goodbye, won two awards, he and his co-director were sentenced to 20 years in prison, charges later dropped and Rasoulof released on bail. However, Rasoulof was not permitted to travel to Berlin for the premiere on Friday The right to choose between being present or absent at the festival is simply not mine, Rasoulof said in a statement to the press the day of the premiere. Imposing such restrictions very clearly exposes the intolerant and despotic nature of the Iranian government.

This years festival marks an important change in leadership under artistic director Carlo Chatrian and executive director Mariette Rissenbeek. Former director Dieter Kosslick stepped down after 18 years at the helm.The lineup features 340 films produced in 71 countries. Eighteen films in the competition category battle for the top award, the Golden Bear, which will be announced Sunday, the final day of the festival.

Berlinale Executive Director Mariette Rissenbeek and Artistic Director Carlo Chatrian attend the opening ceremony of the 70th Berlin International Film Festival in Berlin, Feb. 20, 2020.

The Berlin Film Festival, also called the Berlinale, is one of the most prominent of European film festivals, along with Cannes and the Venice Film Festival. In the film world, the Berlinale has a reputation for being the rebel among its peers and this year is no different.

"A good number of films in the competition decided to look at the dark side of the human being," Chatrian told press before the festival, according to The Associated Press.

"They are not without hope, but at the same time they want to really face whats happening around us," he said. "Sometimes talking about the inner fear. Sometimes talking about the fear thats in the world outside us."

See more here:

Berlin Film Festival highlights dark themes on its 70th anniversary - ABC News

Congresswoman Betty McCollum is not backing down from her criticism of AIPAC.

After issuing a daring statement lambasting the pro-Israel group, the US legislator vowed to continue advocating for the human rights of Palestinian children and push against attempts to silence her.

In an interview with Middle East Eye, McCollum said AIPAC's attacks on Israel's Democratic critics in Congress prove that the organisation is not "inclusive or non-partisan" as it claims to be.

McCollum's remarks come as dozens of her Democratic colleagues gear up to attend the annual AIPAC conference that opens on Sunday. She said she did not ask anyone to skip the event. "Everybody has to make their own decision." But she herself will boycott the gathering.

I am not going to look the other way and not acknowledge speech that is hateful which was directed towards me

- Betty McCollum

"I choose not to attend. Why would I go to an organisation that thinks I'm a terrorist, thinks I'm worse than ISIS... I am not going to look the other way and not acknowledge speech that is hateful which was directed towards me," said McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat.

The controversy started last month, when AIPAC - formally known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - ran inflammatory social media ads against legislators it called "radical Democrats." One of the posts featured McCollum along with Muslim-American congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.

The post was accompanied with a petition suggesting that Congress members who oppose Israel are "more sinister" than the Islamic State militant group, known as IS or ISIS.

On 12 February, McCollum issued an unflinching response accusing AIPAC of acting like a "hate group" that is using incitement to silence debate.

"Hate speech is intentionally destructive and dehumanising, which is why it is used as a weapon by groups with a stake in profiting from oppression," her statement said.

The congresswoman, who was elected to the House of Representatives in 2000, appears to have zero regrets about confronting the pro-Israel organisation head on.

"I live in a country which values freedom of speech and freedom of opinion," she told MEE, adding that it was important for her to reject attempts to "bully" and "belittle" those challenging governmental policies.

AIPAC's recent attacks against McCollum seem to stem from her introducing a bill that would ban US aid to Israel from being used to detain Palestinian children.

How AIPAC is losing bipartisan support in Washington

"I am free to criticise the actions of my government here as a member of Congress who supports the safety and security of Israel as well as the Palestinian people," she said.

"If I think that there's a policy decision that's detracting from the safety and security of people, I have a right to speak up and speak out about it."

The congresswoman also rejected accusations of antisemitism levelled against her, saying that making sure children are protected from the trauma of arrests and interrogations is the opposite of bigotry.

"To say that it's antisemitic to stand up for children's rights and human rights, that has nothing to do with antisemitism," she said. "Antisemitism is wrong, but it's not wrong to criticise a government's policy of detaining children."

The bill is currently in the Foreign Affairs Committee, which will decide whether to hold a hearing on it. The committee is chaired by Elliot Engel, a staunch Democratic supporter of Israel.

McCollum said legislators take many factors into consideration before proceeding with a proposed piece of legislation, including its chances of passing.

"We will of course be following up and asking for a hearing because we would love to shed light on to what's happening to these young Palestinian children in detention," the congresswoman said.

The bill has 23 co-sponsors, so far. Still, two legislators who initially backed it have withdrawn their support.

"A lot of people when it comes to Middle East politics, they are hesitant to get involved because it is so complicated, and we have seen sometimes when you take a stand or make a step forward, there are people out there who are ready to vilify your action," McCollum said.

The Israeli military arrests as many as 700 Palestinians between the age of 12 and 17 annually, prosecuting them militarily "in violation of international standards," the bill states.

If I think that there's a policy decision that's detracting from the safety and security of people, I have a right to speak up and speak out about it

- Betty McCollum

The congresswoman introduced a similar measure in 2017, but after it failed to advance in the House, she reintroduced it to the new Congress last year.

"As someone who trained as a teacher, I think children are important and if we want to have peace in future generations, that means we need to invest in education and health care and opportunitiesfor children," she told MEE.

"When it was brought to our attention in 2015 what was happening to the Palestinian children, I wanted to make sure that my country, my government, was good enough to protect children. And that's how I started getting involved."

From her early days in the House, McCollum has shown willingness to oppose AIPAC, leading her to cast some lonely votes.

In 2006, she was one of 36 House members to oppose a bill that would have cut aid to the Palestinian Authority. The proposal passed in the House with the backing of 361 legislators.

Her first run-in with AIPAC dates back to that vote. At the time, the congresswoman demanded an apology from the pro-Israel group after she said an AIPAC representative told her chief of staff that "support for terrorists will not be tolerated".

Antisemitism is wrong, but it's not wrong to criticise a government's policy of detaining children

- Betty McCollum

"This response may have been the result of extreme emotion or irrational passion, but regardless, it is a hateful attack that is vile and offensive to me and the families I represent," McCollum wrote in an open letter to AIPAC at the time.

Sixteen years later, the congresswoman is still as fierce in rejecting AIPAC's tactics.

After the latest episode, McCollum said her colleagues from both sides of the aisle were outraged by the ads, and so were the people in her district. "My constituents have been absolutely marvelous," she said.

"And I acknowledge and appreciate the support I've received from the Jewish community both nationally and at home in Minnesota.

"They may disagree with me on policy, but they don't disagree that I have the right to criticise the policies of a government if I think that government is doing something that harms children."

Bernie Sanders says he will skip AIPAC conference

AIPAC eventually issued an "unequivocal apology" for its posts, but fell short of addressing the concerns of the lawmakers who were targeted.

"The ad, which is no longer running, alluded to a genuine concern of many pro-Israel Democrats about a small but growing group, in and out of Congress, that is deliberately working to erode the bipartisan consensus on this issue and undermine the US-Israel relationship," AIPAC said earlier this month.

McCollum said the half-hearted apology was not sufficient.

"If they are to make an apology, it needs to be sincere, heartfelt, and it should come with a caveat - 'We will not repeat this mistake again'."

Originally posted here:

'I have right to speak up': Congresswoman McCollum not backing down to AIPAC - Middle East Eye

Government needs to understand that appreciation of different perspectives and criticisms can only help the government become more accountable

I wonder why we are so critical of the government and the government is intolerant of criticisms that come from people. Who are critical of the government? They are people whose lives are still in lurch and whose aspirations are still not addressed. They are the media that carry the voices of such people.

When they become critical of the government, the government loses tolerance. So we have Media Council Bill or rhetorical attacks our Prime Minister KP Oli launched against editors for not possessing a strong heart to praise the good deeds. This has created a rift, or a lack of harmony between the Oli-led government and people or media that are critical of the government.

The majority government is unable to establish harmony with people due to cheap talk of the Prime Minister who never accomplishes what he promises on time, thus widening the gap between the governments roles and the peoples expectations. So many of us profusely vent irrational feelings of dislike and hatred on social media toward the government that vows for the development of the country, but things are not happening in a way they are expected to. However, the government is not willing to accept this truth.

People are told to accept that development is happening. People consider that a lie because they think that just cutting ribbons or inaugurating some developmental projects will not lead the nation to prosperity. It is because livelihood of majority of Nepali people has not improved. Even today, according to Asian Development Bank, 26 percent of the population lives under the poverty line, and 34 out of 1000 babies born in Nepal die. Compared to global scenario, the conditions of many Nepali people are worse in terms of health, education, employment and other facilities.

This gap between lack of delivery and peoples expectations, the gap between the criticism and the governments lack of tolerance, the gap between the governments rhetoric/argument and peoples observations/counterargument has created animosity and hatred against each other, between the majority government and people who have been waiting for too long for minimum change in life.

The government thinks that people and media, that are supposed to represent different voices of people from the streets, are biased against the government while the people and media realize that the government has been very slow in executing development projects effectively and efficiently. People think that it is all because of weak leadership, poor vision and cheap talk. The more hesitant and obdurate the government becomes to listen to the media and people, the more the government will be lambasted upon. There will remain only a handful of loyalists to worship the government and the rest will be its critics.

The government expects each of us to trust it. Those who dont, according to Prime Minister Oli, are regressive. Oli is biased toward those who do not like his talk. This is an indirect way of oppression of the critical voices. Oli tends to exclude people who are critical of the government, thus creating a further gap between the ruler and the ruled, discouraging people to equally participate with the government, and dismissing people who are critical of the government.

Oli-government should appreciate the criticisms as voices for reform. Otherwise, the government may feel humiliated and try to put more power and oppression upon people and media.

Those in the authority do not accept the criticism easily. Our education system tends to discourage criticism. For example, if a teacher is asked a question or argued against his/her views or performance by a student, s/he will feel more threatened and challenged. This way students creativity, alternative thoughts, or out of the box perspective is squashed. This reflects in politics too. We are preached and supposed to follow or listen without questioning the practice or the views in politics, bureaucracy and institutions. Thus people who are given authority feel threatened or challenged when they are asked questions.

People in power start looking for a weapon to fight against such criticisms so that they can portray themselves as good leaders doing great things for the country. They aim at increasing the number of party loyalists by creating rhetoric that blames people who are critical of the government and appreciate those who praise the government. When people become yes men it will create a hierarchy between the governor and the governed. Such gaps may kill the democratic practices and it may become detrimental to our development process.

The government needs to understand that appreciation of different perspectives and criticisms can only help the government become more accountable. The government needs to build positive attitude toward people who are critical of the government. The attitude that whatever the government is doing is flawless, bigger, better and unquestionable will further create a rift between the government and the people and media who are critical of the government. Then the government tends to become autocratic as well. Criticisms help the government to diagnose its mistakes, which when rectified, can make people happy.

The author is Assistant Professor of English at South Georgia State College, USA. He is also the author of Sex, Gender, and Disability in Nepal and Running from the Dreamland

Email: tacharya@my.fau.edu

Go here to read the rest:

Accept the criticisms - myRepublica

UK lawmakers calls on British government to react to CAA violence in India

Member of the British Parliament Khalid Mahmood voiced his concerns over atrocities and violence taking place in India's capital, calling for an official reaction from the UK government.

"Delhi has been burning at the hands of Hindu extremism, 24 people are dead so far and hundreds are injured under this extreme violence," said Mahmood.

"The Indian government has enacted this, which has also produced concentration camps where people will be placed who have lived in the country for years.

"Communal violence is taking place against Muslims, day in and day out so many beatings, torture and deaths taking on the streets, as well as the oppression of the Kashmiri people," he said.

Mahmood requested the Leader of the House to have a discussion on the atrocities committed in India and called for an official statement from the British government regarding the matter.

Reacting to Mahmood's statement, Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg asked him to raise his concerns in next months sitting saying that they were not only concerned about Christians but other minorities as well.

Sporadic violence, hit parts of Delhi overnight as gangs roamed streets littered with the debris of days of sectarian riots that have killed 32 people, police said Thursday.

Thousands of riot police and paramilitaries patrolled the affected northeast fringes of the Indian capital of 20 million people, preventing any major eruptions.

The unrest is the latest bout of violence over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's citizenship law, which triggered months of demonstrations that turned deadly in December.

Read this article:

UK lawmakers calls on British government to react to CAA violence in India - The News International

The media is happy to report on the chaos there now; less so on what caused it in the first place.

Fighters loyal to the Libyan internationally-recognised Government of National Accord (GNA) fire a heavy machine gun during clashes against forces loyal to strongman Khalifa Haftar, on May 21, 2019 in the Salah al-Din area south of the Libyan capital Tripoli. (MAHMUD TURKIA/AFP via Getty Images)

A new report from the United Nations bluntly conveys the extent of the continuing chaos in Libya and the suffering it has caused. Yacoub El Hillo, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Libya, stated that the impact on civilians of the countrys nine-year internecine war is incalculable. That horrible situation is the long-term outcome of U.S. and NATO actions, and it is well past time that guilty officials are held accountable for their disastrous policies.

Libya has been an arena of strife ever since the United States and its NATO allies helped insurgents overthrow Moammar Gaddafis regime in 2011. But the U.N. report suggests that matters have grown noticeably worse over the past year. In the spring of 2019, the Benghazi-based Libyan National Army (LNA), led by one-time CIA asset Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar (sometimes spelled Hifter), launched a military offensive against the U.N.-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA), based in Tripoli. Haftars attack initially seemed likely to prevail, but it soon bogged down and a bloody stalemate ensued.

The Libya conflict has increasingly become a proxy war involving Middle Eastern powers and Russia. Haftar receives weapons, funds, and other backing from several countries, most notably Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. In addition to the diplomatic and financial support it gets from the U.N. and most Western governments, the GNA is obtaining ever-stronger backing from Turkey. Earlier this month, Ankara significantly escalated its involvement when its parliament authorized the deployment of Turkish forces to Libya. Russian mercenaries are already fighting there on behalf of Haftar.

The stakes are higher than just a mundane struggle for political power. Libya sits atop Africas largest supply of oil and natural gas, worth tens of billions of dollars. Both the LNA and GNA have maneuvered to use that oil as a weapon against the opposing side.

U.S. policy seems muddled and ambivalent. Washington still recognizes the GNA as Libyas legitimate government, but the Trump administration has sent mixed signals. After a telephone call between Trump and Haftar in April 2019, the U.S. seemed implicitly to back the LNAs offensive against Tripoli. More recently, U.S. officials called on Haftar to halt the offensive. Yet when peace talks between the GNA and LNA broke down, the administration sent U.S. Ambassador to Libya Richard Norland to meet with Haftar even before contacting the Tripoli regime it officially recognizes.

There is little question that todays Libya is a chaotic mess. Once again, however, Western news outlets are trying to portray a complex foreign conflict as a contest between good and evil. Journalists are intensifying their hostility towards Haftar, designating him as the villain. The Guardian warns that Libyas ugly violence will continue so long as outside governments continue to back Haftar. (Apparently, external meddling on behalf of the GNA and its allied, often Islamist militias does not have a similar effect.) The New York Times appears to have seized the lead in the media campaign to discredit Haftar. In recent weeks, several prominent stories in the Times have highlighted his authoritarianism and brutality.

The one thing most members of the Western media establishment remain unwilling to do, however, is explain how the current chaos in Libya beganmuch less who was responsible for the tragedy. Such convenient amnesia continues a long-standing pattern.

In late 2017, Western reporters belatedly discovered that a slave trade of captured black Africans had become a feature of liberated post-Gaddafi Libya. A devastating account by Ben Norton, an analyst with Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), documented the mainstream medias ongoing willingness to minimize American and NATO responsibility. In particular, Western journalists largely ignored that wars connection to the resumption of slave trading. The American and British media have awakened to the grim reality in Libya, where African refugees are for sale in open-air slave markets, Norton observed. Yet a crucial detail in this scandal has been downplayed or even ignored in many corporate media reports: the role ofthe North Atlantic Treaty Organization in bringing slavery to the North African nation.

NATO supported an array of rebel groups in Libya, Norton noted, many of which were dominated by Islamist extremists and harbored violently racist views. Yet journalists have largely forgotten about the key role NATO played in destroying Libyas government, destabilizing the country and empowering human traffickers. Moreover, even the few news reports that acknowledge NATOs complicity do not go a step further and detail the well-documented, violent racism of the NATO-backed Libyan rebels who ushered in slavery after ethnically cleansing and committing brutal crimes against black Libyans.

Norton singled out a 2017 CNN report for criticism. Despite the flashy multimedia features, he noted, something was missing: The 1,000-word story made no mention of NATO, or the 2011 war that destroyed Libyas government, or Muammar Qadhafi, or any kind of historical and political context whatsoever. The same omission occurred in a series of subsequent CNN news stories about human trafficking in Libya, as it did in plenty of stories in other publications.

Recent news accounts about instability and repression in Libya show a similar desire to avoid discussing the destructive impact that NATOs policies have had. The otherwise excellent, detailed article in the February 20, 2020 New York Times, which documented the oppression of Haftars forces, devoted only one sentence to NATOs role: [Libya] has been in turmoil since an Arab Spring revolt and NATOs intervention toppled Colonel el-Qaddafi nine years ago. And that was in a nearly 2,000-word article.

When they participate in this conspiracy of silence, journalists shirk their duty as watchdogs alerting the public to government incompetence and misconduct. Whatever the Obama administrations motives and goals in launching the military intervention that ousted Gaddafi, the results have been indisputably catastrophic. Yet Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and key advisers such as Susan Rice and Samantha Power still refuse to acknowledge their blunders or apologize to the suffering Libyan people. It is time for the media to stop aiding and abetting such an evasion of responsibility. Stories about the current turmoil in Libya need to provide a clear picture of the shameful historical context.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, is the author of 12 books and more than 850 articles on international affairs. His 2019 book, Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements, contains a chapter on the 2011 U.S.-led regime-change war in Libya and its consequences.

Read the original post:

Whitewashing the West's Disastrous War in Libya - The American Conservative

PM Imran Khan. PHOTO: PTI

Prime Minister Imran Khan on Saturday warned that state-sponsored terrorism in India at the hands of police and Hindu extremist outfit Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) would lead to a blowback in the form of the radicalisation of 200 million Indian Muslims.

In Delhi carnage of Muslims, state-sponsored terror through police and RSS gangs is going to lead to radicalisation of the 200 million Indian Muslims just as the Kashmiri youth has been radicalised through the oppression of Indian occupying forces and deaths of almost 100,000 Kashmiris, the premier tweeted.

I have been predicting that unless the international community intervenes, these developments will have disastrous consequences not only for the region but eventually for the world also, he added.

At least 38 people were killed and 200 others injured in the Indian capital this week in the worst bout of violence in the city in decades triggered by a disputed new citizenship law.

RSS mobs, backed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), carrying iron bars, clubsand bats, roamed Muslim-dominated neighbourhoods, killing and beating Muslims after identifying them and torching their homes, shops and mosques.

The citizenship law is seen by critics as anti-Muslim and part of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modis Hindu nationalist agenda.

PM Imran has time and again tried to warn the world that it must accept the brutal reality of the Modis fascist and racist regime. He has repeatedly likenedIndian ModisBJP to Hitlers Nazis, and called for international intervention to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

Their policy towards Pakistan is full of hate, it is the policy of the RSS, which hates Muslims. They dont consider Muslims equal human beings in India, the premier wrote in an earlier tweet.

The premier warned the international community about the Nazi-inspired RSS ideology taking over a nuclear-armed state of over a billion people. Whenever a racist ideology based on hatred takes over, it leads to bloodshed, he added.

As I had predicted in my address to the United Nations General Assembly last year, once the genie is out of the bottle, the bloodshed will get worse.

Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IOJK) was the beginning: now 200 million Muslims in India are being targeted. The world community must act now.

The IOJK has been facing a continuous lockdown since August 5, 2019 when India revoked a constitutional provision that gave the disputed territory a semblance of autonomy.

From thereon, hundreds of people, particularly young men, have been lodged in faraway jails under the 1978 Public Safety Act, described by Amnesty International in 2016 as a draconian law.

Three former chief ministers of the region have also been booked under the law that allows the government to detain a person for up to two years without a trial.

While some restrictions have eased in the restive Muslim-majority state, high speed internet still continues to remain blocked in the region with a complete ban on social media.

Continue reading here:

State terror in India will radicalise its Muslim: PM Imran - The Express Tribune

History books are filled with war and disease. This is because they are highly dramatic, they affect everyone, and the human reactions to both are universal. It is not surprising that historians have written more about wars and plagues than about any other subject.

For most of human history the gods punished the commoners because their rulers sinned. Thus, the pharaoh brought plagues upon Egypt for his oppression of the Hebrew people, the Olympic gods punished the Hellenes for Agamemnons kidnapping a priests daughter, and Jehovah allowed the king of Israel, Ahab, to die in battle because he had turned to false gods. But sometimes God intervened to protect his people, as Byron wrote about Sennacheribs siege of Jerusalem, The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold.

Still, the best descriptions of epidemics were made by secular historians. Thucydides recounted what happened during the Peloponnesian War when the Athenians brought all the country people and their flocks inside the Long Walls to protect them from the Spartans. Many sickened from polluted water, but when plague arrived on ships from Egypt, perhaps a third of the population died. As the social order broke down, some just gave up and died, others chose drunken revelry, and some rejoiced when they inherited homes and estates. The doctors died first, because they were treating the ill, then parents who cared for family, then friends, and finally many who could have survived if anyone had given them food and water. Religion came to mean little, and morality even less.

The sixth century epidemic during the reign of Justinian was the first appearance of what was later called the Black Death. It was a worldwide disaster that recurred over and over again for the next three centuries, with famine following the death of farmers and the breakdown of commerce. It may have caused the greatest loss of human life in recorded history, and made it impossible for Justinian to accomplish his dream of restoring the Roman Empire.

We are indebted to the 14th century plague for Boccaccios Decameron, a collection of 100 tales supposedly told by five young men and five young women who had taken refuge in the countryside until the disease had run its course. To reduce the boredom each told a story each day. This while a quarter to a third of the population of Europe was dying or fleeing to safer areas.

Londons plague year, 1665-66, was described by Samuel Pepys in his diary. One hundred thousand people died, the epidemic coming to an end only when the Great Fire destroyed most of the city. Less well known, perhaps, a century earlier the Spanish had conquered the Aztecs after smallpox had struck down so many warriors that they could not defend their capital. Later, in the northern woodlands smallpox ravaged native communities because their medical practices encouraged the spread of the disease, but even lesser diseases were fatal becausenatives had no natural immunity.

In all these cases and others in Asia the reaction of the public was much like that described by Thucydides in Athens. Governments that recognized the danger usually responded effectively with public health measures, if they knew what these were. Compare the incompetent response of the Iranians today to the belated but thorough measures taken by the Chinese. President Trumps press conference to introduce the members of the task force has been criticized as too little, too late, even though there have been few confirmed cases here. San Francisco has declared an emergency even though no cases have appeared yet.

Viruses are more difficult to treat than bacteria. Because viruses are not alive in the sense we usually think of living creatures, they can evolve very quickly. As a result, scientists cannot predict what kind of flu will appear in a given year, or which strain will be most contagious. The Coronavirus, which scientists say is much different than the flu, is still outwardly much like the Spanish Flu of 1918-19 which killed more people than the World War. Some nations are panicking because it is so very contagious. The economic impact will be serious.

As one with bad lungs, I hope the scientists come up with an effective treatment soon. But I wont lose my head over something that cannot be avoided and may not happen. I will wash my hands and avoid crowds.

The good news is that diseases that kill their hosts die with them. Thus, only strains that allow their hosts to live will survive to reproduce. That is why the common cold and the flu are generally no longer life-threatening. If we take proper measures, individually and by our various levels of government, we will come through this challenge. After all, our ancestors survived worse.

William Urban is a Lee L. Morgan Professor of History and International Studies at Monmouth College.

Read more here:

William Urban: Looking at plagues of the past - Galesburg Register-Mail

By Trend

The Azerbaijanis were deported from Armenia gradually several times.

Contrary to the false statements, the last deportation of the Azerbaijanis occurred before the Sumgayit events, rather than afterwards. While pursuing a thought-out deportation policy, the Armenians attacked the houses of the Azerbaijanis in Uluhanli, the center of the Masis (Zangibasar) district near Yerevan and destroyed stone gravestones on April 24, 1983.

In the subsequent years, the Armenians carried out the preparatory plans for deportation both overtly and covertly. As a result of this policy of the Armenians, a group of Azerbaijanis was deported from Armenia before the Sumgayit events in 1988, but this information was hidden from the public.

Sixty-five-year-old Imran Namazov, deported from Armenia in September 1988, witnessed these events and in an interview withTrendspoke about the events that occurred before the Sumgayit events.

The Azerbaijanis living in Armenia were oppressed in the Soviet period. Saying that even before the Soviet power, his fathers and grandfathers lived in Armenias Amasia region, Namazov stressed that the majority of the Azerbaijanis lived in this region.

"There were 29 settlements in this region, Namazov added. In 25 of those settlements, only Azerbaijanis lived, and 30-40 families lived in the rest four Armenian villages. There were about 1,500-1800 families in one Azerbaijani village.

Both Azerbaijanis and Armenians lived together in the regional center, the witness added. But the indigenous people of Amasia were Azerbaijanis. Armenians were relocated to this region to take senior positions later. I knew many Armenians who were resettled from Azerbaijan and other countries to Armenia to hold senior positions.

Namazov said that until the last deportation, approximately 250,000 Azerbaijanis lived in Armenia, adding that many of them were people with higher education.

According to Imran Namazov, Azerbaijanis were oppressed in Armenia even before the 1988 deportation.

"There were very few schools with instruction in the Azerbaijani language in Armenia, so Azerbaijanis could not study in their native language. An Azerbaijani who did not speak Armenian could not work at any job, even if he was an academician," Namazov said.

Namazov noted that due to the oppression of Azerbaijanis living in Armenia, most of those who studied in other countries did not return to Armenia because they knew that they would not find work there and would encounter problems. Armenians began to oppress Azerbaijanis even more after 1985.

The eyewitness to the Sumgayit events added that the oppression of Azerbaijanis in Armenia was always common in Soviet times, but it became more tangible after 1985.

"Back in 1985, Academician Abel Aganbegyan raised the issue of Nagorno Karabakh and the importance of its accession to Armenia. In March 1985, after the election of Mikhail Gorbachev as the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Armenians became more active in their politics," Namazov said.

In his words, they began to oppress highly educated Azerbaijanis who could raise the people, so they were forced to leave Armenia for Azerbaijan, Russia, Ukraine and other countries.

Imran Namazov said that the Armenians beat and insulted the Azerbaijanis in order to intimidate them even prior to the Sumgayit events and the deportation of 1988.

"In those years, Azerbaijanis couldn't leave their villages. Sumgayit Armenians hung so many young Azerbaijanis in their own apartments...," he added.

Imran Namazov noted that rallies began in the capital of Armenia, Yerevan on Feb. 19, 1988. and the slogans of the rallies were "Armenia without Turks", "Armenia belongs to the Armenians".

Namazov noted that after the Sumgayit events, it became impossible for Azerbaijanis to live in Armenia.

The Armenians informed the Central Committee [of the Communist party] that they wouldnt be able to live together with the Azerbaijanis, so Karabakh should be annexed to Armenia, said the witness. In support of this, the Armenians committed Sumgayit events on Feb. 27-28, 1988. The Armenians living in Sumgayit moved to those areas of Armenia where the Azerbaijanis lived.

Namazov recalls that because of these events, clashes broke out between the Sumgayit Armenians who considered the Azerbaijanis guilty and the Azerbaijanis living in Armenia.

After the Sumgayit events, the Soviet government brought in dozens of tanks and military personnel to the Amasia district center, which actually played the role of a catalyst, the witness added. If they saw a conflict between an Azerbaijani and an Armenian, they arrested the Azerbaijani and released the Armenian. After the Sumgayit events, all the Azerbaijanis who traveled to Leninakan (Gyumri city), - children, the elderly - were either beaten or insulted. In short, it was impossible to go there.

Namazov added that the Armenians prepared a plan to exterminate about 30,000 Azerbaijanis in the area.

Armenians planned an attack on Azerbaijanis living in Amasia in December 1988, said the witness. However, a strong earthquake that occurred on December 7, 1988, prevented the implementation of this plan. The attack was planned for December 8, for which even detachments were created that were entrusted with the task of exterminating all Azerbaijanis. By that time, about 30,000 Azerbaijanis were living in the district.

At the end of his story, Namazov noted that local Azerbaijanis had guessed about the impending attack because of the preparatory activities.

The Armenians who had close contacts with the Azerbaijanis in the district warned them about these plans. Some Armenians who were close to me said: Leave so that our conscience is clear. The members of the Dashnaktsutyun party are forcing us to shoot those Azerbaijanis whom we know and with whom we have shared the bread, and we will be forced to do so, said the witness.

---

Follow us on Twitter@AzerNewsAz

Go here to read the rest:

Witness of events: Armenians beat and insulted Azerbaijanis even before Sumgayit events - AzerNews

The 50th anniversary of the first Womens Liberation Conference in Oxford was planned as a celebration of social struggle and triumphant survival. But on Saturday morning the event quickly turned into an angry and full-throated demonstration of the ongoing arguments inside the movement.

The alleged no platforming of feminist historian Selina Todd the night before the conference prompted loud protests from the packed hall at the former site of Ruskin College, the spot of the original meeting in 1970. This is cowardice. How can we do this to a woman who has worked all her life on behalf of other disenfranchised women? asked Julie Bindel, the radical feminist writer.

Organisers said that Todd had not been banned from the conference, but was asked to give up her short thank you speech slot on behalf of the Oxford University history faculty in response to a boycott threat from other speakers.

Author Lola Olufemi, a billed panellist who had pulled out of the event when she learned of Todds involvement, said in a statement that she felt the conference planners had not done enough to investigate Todds alignment with the Womans Place UK group, which she regards as transphobic. I have seen first-hand how middle-class white women with social capital have used their gatekeeping power to harass trans people, threaten them with defamation, actively work to curtail their rights, refused to extend solidarity, and then claim victimhood, she said, explaining why she withdrew from the event.

Womans Place UK is pushing for government ministers to consult more widely about changes to the Gender Recognition Act, which would allow people to legally self-identify as a man or a woman without medical approval. It rejects accusations that it is transphobic and trans-exclusionist. Its founders say it aims to ensure that womens voices are heard and our sex-based rights upheld. However, critics say it is trying to limit the rights of trans people.

Todd was re-invited into the hall after a show of hands in favour from a large majority, among them at least 15 women who were at the 1970 conference, including Sheila Rowbotham, Sue OSullivan and Sally Alexander, the activist played by Keira Knightley in the new film Misbehaviour.

Todd did not appear at the morning session, but a statement issued in criticism of her treatment and distributed around the hall said: Selina Todd supports the right of women and girls to same-sex spaces (such as refuges). This is enshrined in law. Her opponents believe the law should be changed. They arent willing to engage in respectful debate with those who disagree, preferring to silence feminists.

The text of Todds undelivered speech to the conference opened with thanks to Ruskin College, the trade union-sponsored educational establishment now based outside the city in Headington, as the place where her parents had met in 1967. Of feminisms future, she would have said: Weve got far to go and its easy to despair. But history reminds us feminism never starts from a good place: it is borne from oppression.

The BBC presenter Samira Ahmed also addressed the conference, saying she was concerned by the no platforming of Todd as she believed it was important to listen to each other.

Speaking about her recent battle for equal pay, one of four key demands back in 1970, she said: I never thought I would have to make a sex discrimination pay claim. I thought it would all be sorted.

Other demands of the original conference were improved education, 24-hour nurseries, free contraception and abortion on demand.

The mood of the 40th anniversary events was comparatively warm and nostalgic, according to accounts. The 50th birthday row, it seems, was much more in keeping with the fiery debate of the first conference, which had been called for by Rowbotham and was initially focused on womens collective history until it was realised so little had ever been recorded. Instead it turned to contemporary issues, and in a then radical twist, men ran a creche so that any mothers were free to speak.

Alexander, who as a student helped set up the first event, said she recalled it as episodic and chaotic. We had expected 100 women and 600 came, she said, going on to praise the calm manner of Sue Vickery who chaired the 1970 event. We were feeling our way, she said, and borrowing the vocabulary of other movements, like the civil rights campaign. We used the word woman then with a sense of enthusiasm and pride. The phrase Womens Liberation raised fear then for ourselves and for others, and sometimes it still does.

Seven other national Womens Liberation Movement conferences followed the initial Oxford event in 1970. Further central demands were added along the way, including legal and financial independence for all women, an end to discrimination against lesbians, freedom from intimidation by the threat or use of violence or sexual coercion, either in or outside marriage, and an end to laws and assumptions that shore up the male domination of women.

Most pertinently though it had different significance then a controversial decision made at the Birmingham conference put the right to a self-defined sexuality at the top as a preface to all the other demands.

Link:

Echoes of 1970 as row breaks out at celebration of feminist conference - The Guardian