Monthly Archives: July 2021

When It Comes To Dismissing Marital Violence, Aren’t We All Josephines? – The Wire

Posted: July 7, 2021 at 2:52 pm

Recently, there was a small political storm in Kerala over the controversial remarks of M.C. Josephine, the chairperson of the Kerala Womens Commission, who later resigned. In a live interaction on a television phone-in show, a caller mentioned being subjected to domestic violence and not having told anybody, including the police. To this, Josephine responded: Enna pinne anubhavicho! (Oh, then you suffer!).

News of this incident spread quickly across traditional and social media in Kerala and outside it. Josephine has made controversial and callous remarks in the past as well. Opposition political parties particularly the Congress and the BJP and many outside of party politics have condemned the remarks. Faced with this backlash, at a time when the state government led by the CPI(M) is set to embark on an ambitious gender outreach programme, she resigned under pressure.

Unfortunately and alas inevitably, the incident was soon constructed in party political terms and in terms of political correctness. There is little discussion of the extent and nature of domestic violence and the patterns of reporting and silence around it. Meanwhile, other recent prominent cases of gendered violence continue to be reported in Kerala and there have been recent imaginative and subtle attempts to sustain discussions around patriarchy. In the past, political classes and their constituencies have been more comfortable with discourses and interventions around development and womens economic rights more than issues of sexual harassment and violence. We seek to contextualise Josephines intemperate remarks as considerable evidence already exists that even ignorant remarks reflect a dismissive attitude towards marital violence that is common within a patriarchal context.

People at a protest demanding an end to violence against women. Photo: cathredfern/Flickr CC BY NC 2.0

Insights from the National Family Health Survey

The only credible large scale data source for domestic violence and reporting in India is the National Family Health Survey (NFHS), which surveyed a large representative sample of women of reproductive age (15-49 years) using sophisticated sampling and questions consistent with the Demographic and Health Survey conducted in many parts of the world. The NFHS covers sexual and emotional violence as well, but here we focus on physical violence including pushing, shaking, slapping, punching, kicking, dragging, twisting arm, pulling hair, strangling and burning.

The latest available NFHS data for all Indian states are from 2015-16 (NFHS-4). In that year, Keralas incidence of domestic violence was 13.3%. Of the women in Kerala reporting domestic violence on the survey, the vast majority 76% had not shared this information with anyone. In India as a whole, the incidence of domestic physical violence was far worse (29.8%) and the overall silence was also worse: 86% of women did not report it to anyone. Clearly, the victims of domestic violence rarely come forward or seek help. When speaking of abuse, it is the silence that is resounding.

Reporting of domestic violence

The figure below shows that in Kerala, expectedly, of those who did reach out, most often it was to their natal families (parents or siblings) and yet only a sixth of them did so. Less than a tenth shared with their husbands family and only 2% shared with neighbours and friends. Of relevance for Josephines controversial remarks, only 3% of women reporting domestic violence on the survey had approached the police. Other institutional possibilities social organisations, lawyers, religious leaders are used even less. The real question is why three-quarters of women who faced domestic physical violence in Kerala did not report this to anyone and why only 16% reported it to even their own natal families and only 3% reported it to the police.

While the very low level of reporting domestic violence not only to the police but even within networks of family and friends is of immense concern, it is hardly shocking for those working on gender issues. Previous rounds of NFHS presented similar patterns of silence, as have qualitative studies. Framed against this background, Josephines remarks are all the more troubling.

In fact, much is known about the silences of those facing violence. Surveys such as the NFHS reveal that in some Indian states, more than half the women justify the use of physical violence. Women are often silenced by social norms that legitimise domestic violence if they fail in their duties as good wives and daughters-in-law, making them believe that somehow they are responsible for the violence they face.

Where community members believe that a woman is a worthy victim and is blameless, they are more likely to intervene. Women often do not report violence to institutions because of fear of being disbelieved or humiliated or worse still, blamed for the violence. Police officials often view marital violence as a private matter, preferring that couples compromise rather than file a police complaint, even in all-women police stations.

When domestic violence is precipitated by alcohol abuse, victims feel humiliated because of the violence as well as having a spouse who is an alcoholic. Studies indicate that dowry demands and alcoholism are among the major causes of domestic violence in Kerala.

Research also reveals that when domestic violence is accompanied by dowry-related violence, women are less likely to be silenced and more likely to be supported. Thanks to feminist activism over several decades, dowry-related violence is penalised and considered an unacceptable form of violence against wives. Dowry harassment is seen as true oppression, but non-dowry related domestic violence has not invited a similar degree of social censure. In fact, in recent years mens rights groups have successfully fought to dilute the legal protections for those facing domestic violence.

Resounding as the silence around domestic violence is for Kerala, it is still larger for many other parts of the country. The figure below shows that for India as a whole, the percentage of women in domestic violence situations who reach out to family and friends is only between half and two-thirds of the corresponding numbers for Kerala. Reporting to institutional sources, including the police, is far worse still, reaching only between a tenth and a fifth of Keralas already low levels.

This reality is consistent with research suggesting a pyramid of reporting (see figure below): among the few who share their experience of violence, most often it is shared first with the natal family, less often with in-laws, and still less with acquaintances. Reporting to institutions, such as the police or womens organisations, is far less. An even smaller fraction of this gets to the court, and only a sliver gets convicted although there is a civil law (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, PWDVA) and a criminal law (Section 498A) under which women can seek redress from courts.

Changes in reporting of violence over time

What has been the trend over time? When we compare data from two successive rounds of NFHS (2005-06 and 2015-16), the incidence of domestic physical violence in Kerala reduced only slightly over that decade, from 15.3% to 13.3%. But despite this, there were large changes in the patterns of reporting violence over the decade. The figure below plots reporting to family and friends (left graph) and institutions (right graph) in 2005-06 versus 2015-16. The 45-degrees line helps to gauge the extent of change over time: dots below the line indicate a higher value in 2015-16 and dots above the line indicate a higher value in 2005-06. The figure shows that incidence of reporting to family halved in Kerala over the decade from 32% to only 16% for natal family and from 17% to only 8% for husbands family.

And yet the figure shows the opposite trend for institutional reporting (right graph). Although the incidence of reporting to police is extremely low, it more than doubled in Kerala from 1.3% to 3.1%. Similarly, there is an upward trend for reporting to the other institutional sources as well. The opposing time trends in the two sets of graphs call for greater research and understanding of underlying dynamics. The pyramid of reporting is changing considerably in Kerala.

What is disturbing but not unexpected is that rather than view Josephines remarks as a trigger for deeper understanding of the situation, political expediency and casual outrage have marked the response. Presumably, the storm will unfortunately be relegated to this chaaya-cup and politics and social media will move on to other matters to get outraged about. There is little evidence that political leaders of the Congress or the BJP who successfully called for Josephines resignation, are particularly aware of the extent and nature of domestic violence reporting or the deeper causes of silence. In fact, it would not have been surprising if Josephines remarks had actually come from any one of a number of political leaders of the CPI(M), Congress or other parties or for that matter, from senior bureaucrats, religious leaders, and so forth. We find the expressions of outrage to be insincere.

Leadership whether political, institutional or social should be backed by a greater understanding of the situation, in this case, the understanding that women overwhelmingly do not approach the police, or for that matter even their own families and friends. Leadership should also be about acknowledging the problem rather than being self-righteous without sufficiently engaging with the problem. In todays aggressive and uber-masculine models of leadership whether from the prime minister, chief minister or opposition leaders there is little appetite for self-reflection. Ironically, those aggressive models belie a lack of self-confidence and a lack of ambition towards truly transformative politics.

If a Gandhi were around today, would he not respond by not only questioning Josephines remarks but also, in the same breath, acknowledging that most of us are cut from the same cloth as her? Rather than cast stones at Josephine or the government that appointed her, would we not be better served by Gibrans well-known words: And when one of you falls down he falls for those behind him, a caution against the stumbling stone. Aye, and he falls for those ahead of him, who, though faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone.

Is it too much to dream that this deplorable incident can become an opportunity to acknowledge the depredations of patriarchal power and our own individual and collective complicity in it and through that process, transcend the everyday jostling for power to attempt a more compassionate politics? If we cant even hope for such a possibility, what are we really left with?

Suraj Jacob teaches at the Azim Premji University. Sreeparna Chattopadhyay is an independent researcher based in Bangalore.

Follow this link:

When It Comes To Dismissing Marital Violence, Aren't We All Josephines? - The Wire

Posted in Political Correctness | Comments Off on When It Comes To Dismissing Marital Violence, Aren’t We All Josephines? – The Wire

Why Bret Weinstein is Part of the Right, Even if He Says He Isn’t – Houston Press

Posted: at 2:52 pm

^

Support the independent voice of Houston and help keep the future of Houston Press free.

Ive spent the last couple of weeks reporting on both ivermectin as a COVID cure and the newest wave of dangerous anti-vaccination nonsense (spoiler: the two are deeply related). Since then, my email has been a non-stop neurotic cabaret of screwballs, but a lot of the anger comes from the fact that I dared to call podcaster and professor in exile Bret Weinstein, a key figure in both promoting ivermectin and debunked ideas about the dangers of widespread vaccination, a far right grifter. Weinstein often identifies himself as left leaning or a lifelong Democrat, much as Canadian professor, author, and YouTube personality likes to call himself a classical British liberal. How can such men be right wing if they reject the label?

Its a question worth exploring, and it involves a long, deep dive into what even counts as the American right wing anymore. Lets dig through the entrails of Weinstein and see if we cant find an answer.

The political right wing is supposedly a collection of various positions such as a weak federal government, low taxes, deregulation of private enterprise, and a large police state and armed forces, and personal freedom. On top of these are a host of moral or social issues generally perceived as right wing even when they directly contradict the previous list. These include interference with or restrictions of the rights of marginalized people, strict limits on reproductive choice, silencing political opinions that speak out against state force or white supremacy, and voting impediments.

However, I would argue that since around 2010, the right wing in practice is none of these things save perhaps low taxes meant to preserve the wealthiest class of Americans at the expense of everyone else. Especially since the election of former president Donald Trump, the one consistent right-wing position is whatever owns the libs. One side of the political spectrum, especially at the regular citizen level, has firmly committed itself to eternal opposition for oppositions sake. What is the right? Its whatever the left is not no matter how ridiculous it may be. Even the protection of the upper class has a vaguely trollish feel to it these days. Its not just that those people are rich, its that you, socialist with a weird haircut who thinks people should be able to doctor for free, are poor and miserable.

Which brings us to someone like Weinstein, who has long since abandoned his academic past to become a professional troll. His new life started when he resigned from Evergreen State College following a dustup on campus. The whole story is long and muddy, and no one comes out of it looking good. The tl:dr is that Weinstein called a program that asked white students to stay off campus for a day to learn about racial issues an act of oppression, and when protests and threats followed he doubled down. Weinstein sued the college for failing to protect him, and a settlement was eventually reached where he resigned.

Whoever was in the right at Evergreen (if anyone), the post-collegiate work of Weinstein is a perfect example of how a liberal can still become radicalized to the right. His story is actually very common.

Many people called Weinstein racist for his actions at the college. He undoubtable got threats and having been the subject of multiple organized online harassment campaigns I can attest that is something very traumatizing. Unfortunately, its also a kind of alt-right gateway drug because it leaves you emotionally vulnerable.

YouTuber Laci Green was famous for her sex education videos with a feminist bent, but at one point she used some language that resulted in a pretty vicious dragging on Twitter from trans people. Since then, shes morphed into a member of the red pill crowd, a loose confederation of misogynists and transphobes (read: "gender critical") that serve as the respectable face of gender-based fascism.

Or consider conservative political commentator Candace Owens. At one point, she ran a mostly liberal blog site, and said she wanted to start a website where people could name and shame harassers. This was during GamerGate, and prominent harassment targets like Zoe Quinn and Randi Lee Harper reached out to Owens to tell her how badly a system like that could be gamed by trolls. Owens interpreted the advice as a vicious harassment from the left, and shes been the far rights best Black friend ever since.

That happens because when the left pushes back against errors in judgment or morality, a lot of people flee in the opposite direction where the far right waits with open arms and love bombs. Thats what happened with Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling. As people began to call out her transphobia on Twitter, she was championed and comforted by the far right. The spiral continued, leaving her to detach even from the child actors she had watched grow up in order to hang with her new, far right friends. If it sounds like cult recruitment, thats because it is.

This is sort of the position that Weinstein finds himself in. His actions at Evergreen are seen as a solid blow against college campus political correctness and it makes him a martyr for the white people are actually the most oppressed crowd. Figures like FOX pundit Tucker Carlson and talk show host Dave Rubin praise him, and the king of all alt-right apologia, Joe Rogan, has him on as a guest.

Consequently, Weinstein begins to respond to this increasingly right-wing audience. He says he wrote in Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) for president in 2016, yet opposes signature positions like universal healthcare and free college unless America has a massive surplus, essentially negating the idea of such services as a right or entitlement for all people. He claims to support equality for Black people, but never fails to paint Black Lives Matter as an insidious Communist organization that is trying to force climate change justice down our throats.

All of these sorts of positions give him the plausible deniability of being liberal while still annoying the left and winning the admiration of the right for supposed hard truths. The trollish nature of Weinsteins output is best shown by his call for a unity ticket for president made up of Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Houston) and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii). His idea of someone the left would appreciate is a woman who goes on FOX News to scream about cancel culture, which she compares to Islamic extremism.

Coming to that conclusion requires a potent combination of obliviousness, bad faith argument, and self-deception. This is probably not helped by the fact that Bret Weinstein often doesnt know what hes bloody talking about anyway. A former colleague of his at Evergreen, Prof. Nancy Koppelman, laid out a rather blistering condemnation of Weinsteins time as a teacher that makes his seduction to the right much more understandable. She taught with him twice, and noted his lack of interest in any work he was not personally invested in. This included texts Koppelman was teaching with, to the point he flat out faked reading them. That attitude extended to his students assignments.

Weinstein lacks a commitment to students work, she wrote. He flat out refused to read their writing because what he really cared about was students engagement with him. Thats not the best use of my time, he once told me.

Koppelmans essay paints the picture of a man who is charismatic and intelligent, but who cares more about his own ego rather than seeking for the truth. She says she rarely heard him concede a point another had made, and his refusal to listen to criticism over the incident that led to his resignation is partially why the whole thing escalated in the first place.

Even the ivermectin and anti-vaccination promotion ties into that. Weinstein might say hes pro-vaccine, but hes happy to build interest in an anti-authority, anti-intellectualism movement because that is what his right-wing audience likes. Truth is less important than asserting ones entitlement to disagree, even when the disagreement is fatally dangerous.

Weinstein, Owens, Rowling, Green these are people who really love to hear themselves speak. No judgment there, so do I. However, they are more marked by their inability to listen at the expense of their own spotlight. As voices raise to try and reach them, they retreat into the ranks of conservatives who will happily defend their right to be wrong to the death.

Because the right no longer has any creed but make the left mad and is comfortable with hypocrisy, the self-image of people like Weinstein as a progressive or liberal is easy to maintain. He can vote for Biden as he says he did, and still be firmly part of the right-wing machine. The content he creates now is right wing content, and if thats not who he is in his heart then the effect on the world is still exactly the same.

In the end, Weinstein is radicalized by his audience. They are eager to swallow a self-identified progressive and regurgitate him as a shield for their own views. Is Weinstein a liberal as he says? I cant know and dont care. What I can measure is his worth to the right wing army of habitual malcontents and bullshit artists, which is very, very high. Someone that useful to the alt-right is not a progressive. They just arent.

Keep the Houston Press Free... Since we started the Houston Press, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Houston, and we would like to keep it that way. Offering our readers free access to incisive coverage of local news, food and culture. Producing stories on everything from political scandals to the hottest new bands, with gutsy reporting, stylish writing, and staffers who've won everything from the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi feature-writing award to the Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism. But with local journalism's existence under siege and advertising revenue setbacks having a larger impact, it is important now more than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" membership program, allowing us to keep covering Houston with no paywalls.

Jef Rouner is a contributing writer who covers politics, pop culture, social justice, video games, and online behavior. He is often a professional annoyance to the ignorant and hurtful.

View post:

Why Bret Weinstein is Part of the Right, Even if He Says He Isn't - Houston Press

Posted in Political Correctness | Comments Off on Why Bret Weinstein is Part of the Right, Even if He Says He Isn’t – Houston Press

Will Cancel Culture Lead to the End of Insensitive TV Characters? (Guest Blog) – Yahoo Entertainment

Posted: at 2:52 pm

hollyblog guest blog banner

When the skilled dramatic actor Caroll OConnor took a comedic turn as Archie Bunker in All in the Family in 1971, critics noticed the layered performance. Looking back decades later, Ronald Brownstein wrote in The Atlantic: All in the Family commanded national attention to a degree almost impossible to imagine in todays fractionated entertainment landscape. Archie Bunkers catchwords stifle, meathead, and dingbat all became national shorthand. Scholars earnestly debated whether the show punctured or promoted bigotry.

A Smithsonian Magazine article by Sascha Cohen stated that the fictional working-class TV dad was retrograde, incapable of dealing with the modern world, a simpleton left behind by the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, a pathetically displaced historical loser. (Producer Norman Lear) used him as a device to make racism and sexism look foolish and unhip, but liberals protested that as a loveable bigot, Archie actually made intolerance acceptable. Lear had intended to create a satirical and exaggerated figure, what one TV critic called hardhat hyperbole, but not everyone got the joke. Archie was relatable to audience members who felt stuck in dead-end jobs with little hope of upward mobility, and who were similarly bewildered by the new rules of political correctness.

The television archetype of a flawed but likable character continued through the following decades.

In 1998, Will & Grace brought viewers the incorrigible, drunken snob Karen Walker, played by Megan Mullally. A review in The Sydney Morning Herald by Michael Idato later called the fictional Walker brilliantly selfish. The couture-wearing socialite seemed to insult a loyal friend each episode, be it her housekeeper Rosario or her friend Grace. Karen Walkers one-liners often criticized her friends race, appearance or sexual orientation. The role won Mullally an Emmy Award in 2000 and 2006 for Outstanding Supporting Actress In A Comedy Series.

Story continues

In 2006, 30 Rock debuted and Alec Baldwins career was revived by playing Jack Donaghy, a talented but blunt and arrogant executive. In The Hollywood Reporter, Erin Carlson later described Donaghy as a cutthroat corporate blowhard and apparent misogynist with a strong sense of purpose; Alpha-level ambition; dark humor; an anxiety propelled by fear of failure and loss of control. Mr. Baldwin balanced the Donaghy character with touches of charm, warmth and handsome style. For his skilled portrayal, Baldwin won the Emmy Award in 2008 and 2009 for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series.

All of these rich television roles came before cancel culture. Now, it seems as though any insensitive comment or perceived slight can easily lead to the end of an actors career or their television role, even if said character is fictional.

In 2021, the CBS sitcom United States of Al was criticized for having an actor play a character whose ethnicity was not his own. The Hollywood Reporter stated in an article by James Hibberd: The Big Bang Theory producer Chuck Lorres latest midseason series United States of Al is being criticized for casting a non-Afghan actor in its titular role, and for the characters depiction in general The shows plot centers around two friends who met in Afghanistan while one of them was a soldier and the other was his Afghan interpreter. The two buddies give each other advice and hang out. They are kind people trying their best. Apparently, some critics and Twitter users are not familiar with the definitions of acting and fiction. Besides, I know of nothing in United States of Al worth opposing. And if a viewer doesnt like the program, they can always change the channel. Why ruin an entire enterprise because your sensitivities were damaged?

I hope my remarks do not make me sound like Archie Bunker. But there are worse things than being an American who makes mistakes and does their best to adapt to a changing world.

Thomas Jefferson once called America an experiment in democracy. As we live and work together, we enjoy many rights, including the freedom of speech.

Yes, you are allowed to complain about mild, fictional television characters. But if you cancel them, what are you going to do about Shakespeares plotting, wicked Lady Macbeth or the tyrannical Henry VIII?

Read original story Will Cancel Culture Lead to the End of Insensitive TV Characters? (Guest Blog) At TheWrap

The rest is here:

Will Cancel Culture Lead to the End of Insensitive TV Characters? (Guest Blog) - Yahoo Entertainment

Posted in Political Correctness | Comments Off on Will Cancel Culture Lead to the End of Insensitive TV Characters? (Guest Blog) – Yahoo Entertainment

Tom Brady Has Really Stuck His Foot-Long in It This Time – Sportscasting

Posted: at 2:52 pm

Hmmm, what can we do with Tom Brady following his admission that what he says seldom aligns with how he really feels?

Someone must have posed something approximating that question. And then someone else chimed in and suggested making the Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback the celebrity pitchman for a fast-food chain.

Yes, sir. Thats some smooth thinking by executives at Subway right there.

Brady appeared on an episode of the HBO productionThe Shopand took part in a free-wheeling discussion with a panel including Golden State Warriors star Draymond Green, LeBron James business manager Maverick Carter, and comedian Chelsea Handler.

When the conversation turned to political correctness, Brady all but admitted he lies constantly. (Unless, of course, that was a lie.)

What I say vs. what I think are two totally different things, the winner of seven Super Bowls said. I would say 90% of what I say is probably not what Im thinking. Which is challenging, you know? I think theres part of me that doesnt like conflict. So, in the end, I just always try to play it super flat.

Brady gave an example of dealing with reporters, a never-ending task for a starting quarterback:

From a strategic standpoint, I never want to give away like what were doing, you know what Im saying? he explained. Like, I usually say the opposite. Like, if theyve got a s corner, Ill be like, That guys unbelievable. I dont know how they even complete balls over there.

Meanwhile, in the back of his mind, Brady is formulating how hes going to conduct 60 minutes of air-raid drills on that cornerback on Sunday.

The timing of Bradys HBO appearance roughly coincided with the revelation that he is the new celebrity pitchman for the Subway sandwich chain, a role that Bill Belichick, his former NFL coach, undertook not long ago.

The gig doesnt sync with the quarterbacks much-discussed TB12 diet, which understandably poses something of a credibility problem right off the bat. Sports Business Journal reported that Brady doesnt hold a Subway sandwich in the first ad. By contrast, Belichicks ad showed him devouring a sandwich.

Outkick.com dug up a Brady interview in which he railed against processed foods.

We keep eating what they sell us and then wondering why the rates of disease and obesity are so high, he said. Our bodies become toxic when we ingest toxic chemicals. When I think about food, I picture an avocado, a banana, a salad, a handful of nuts, or a piece of fish. I dont picture a box of cereal, a tub of margarine, a box of doughnuts, a bag of potato chips, or anything else manufactured using salt, sugar, fat, etc.

That has the making of a public relations problem for Subway when the ad campaign starts and the media harps on the seeming contradiction.

Perhaps the only positive come from Seth Wickersham. The ESPN writer pointed out that, contrary to reports about the relationship between Brady and Subway, he did used to eat there more than 20 years ago.

Soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo created international news early in the Euro 2020 tournament for something other than his brilliance on the field.

Taking a seat at a news conference ahead of Portugals match against Hungary, Ronaldo saw two Coca-Cola bottles on the table. Well known for his strict diet to stay in optimal condition, Ronaldo shuns soft drinks. He moved the bottles out of photo range, obviously disassociating himself from both a tournament sponsor and one of the most famous brands on the planet.

The move triggered stories in financial and advertising industry publications, not to mention discussions on social media. Though its a reach to attribute it all to Ronaldos action, Coke stock sold off in the financial markets, dropping its market cap by $4 billion. Three weeks later, the market cap has declined by another $4 billion.

Brady re-tweeted the image of Ronaldo moving the bottles, commenting, Its almost like the veterans know what theyre doing. @Cristiano @TB12sports.

In case youre wondering, Subway sells Coke products at its nearly 22,000 U.S. locations, making for one more reason that having Brady as a celebrity spokesperson is awkward at best for the chain.

Like Sportscasting on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter @sportscasting19.

RELATED: Bitcoin Is Doing to Tom Brady What 521 NFL Defenders Previously Accomplished

Read this article:

Tom Brady Has Really Stuck His Foot-Long in It This Time - Sportscasting

Posted in Political Correctness | Comments Off on Tom Brady Has Really Stuck His Foot-Long in It This Time – Sportscasting

Boris Johnson cries freedom to fill the void where his leadership should be – The Guardian

Posted: at 2:51 pm

Everyone has found pandemic restrictions frustrating. Few see them on the spectrum of state coercion tending inevitably towards the Gulag. But the hysterical minority is overly represented in the Conservative party. As a result, the language of political emancipation is misapplied to something that would, in a more rational setting, be discussed in terms of clinical outcome. With so many people vaccinated and so many businesses craving customers, it makes sense to adjust the risk calculus, but for Tory MPs to speak of a freedom day is pantomime.

They mean freedom from the face mask, asserting their own right to no longer care about Covid infections, while making it sound like freedom from the disease itself. This is the same reflex that wanted to celebrate Brexit with an independence day on the grounds that EU membership equated to colonisation by a foreign power. It is the familiar revving of ideological engines, racing through the rhetorical gears from metaphor to hyperbole to paranoid delusion and fantasies of joining the resistance in people whose only political struggle has been for selection to a safe Tory seat.

Boris Johnson is, as ever, torn between the need to associate himself with happy feelings of liberation and fear of taking responsibility for the consequences of a policy unmoored to evidence. The prime ministers public statements are often an exercise in self-persuasion. He only knows what he believes by trying it out on an audience. When he cautions against getting demob happy he is reminding himself that he cannot get Covid done, as he claimed he could with Brexit, although he is obviously bored with the pandemic plotline in the story he wants told about his leadership.

The next volume has chapter headings without meaningful contents. Britain will build back better and level up, bridging inequalities with infrastructure and jobs in low-carbon industries. There is a lot of blank space to be filled and technical policy is not Johnsons genre. Also, the whole thing has to pass through the editorial process of the Treasurys three-year spending review in the autumn.

The cabinet battle for finite resources will be the story of the autumn as departments put pressure on the chancellor, either by leaking tales of the dire consequences of underfunding or briefing that support has been promised as a way to make it so. Johnsons aversion to difficult choices and face-to-face confrontation will make him an absent arbitrator, spreading confusion where he should be dictating priorities.

It is possible that a coherent model for post-pandemic government will emerge from that tussle, but not likely. Instead, levelling up will continue to be a euphemism for pork-barrel politics, with funds that are nominally earmarked for the neediest towns deployed in constituencies where Tory MPs must repay the former Labour voters who switched sides.

There is nothing subtle about this process. The transactional character of the Conservative electoral offer has been explicit in recent local council and byelection contests. The message put out in Hartlepool and, less successfully, Batley and Spen, is that it pays to send a Tory MP to Westminster because that is where all the money is kept. That resonates with people who associate the physical degradation and social decay in their towns not with Johnsons Conservatives but with decades of local Labour incumbency. Sometimes the charge of complacency and neglect is earned, but it is perverse that Keir Starmers party should feel the backlash for council cuts made inevitable by George Osbornes austerity budgets.

There is something of the mafia protection racket about this dynamic. The Tories break things up and then saunter around the vandalised site, full of feigned sympathy and slippery charm steeped in menace, announcing that the way to avoid such distress in the future is to pay tribute to the Johnson syndicate. It is an effective system as long as the promise of protection is made good. That imperative sets Downing Street strategy more than any ideological conviction.

It also carries the risk of neglecting places that have been voting Conservative for much longer and with a different conception of what they get in return for that allegiance. When the safe seat of Chesham and Amersham was lost to the Liberal Democrats, party managers were quick to attribute the swing to specific grievances planning reform and the HS2 rail line. But in private, Tory MPs admit that a wider malaise was involved. Lifelong supporters of the party, many of whom voted remain in 2016 but had no hesitation in preferring Johnson and Theresa May to Jeremy Corbyn as candidates for prime minister, are uneasy about the aggressive and mercenary style of the government.

This is not (or not exclusively) resentment of fiscal transfers from affluent southern Tory heartlands to newly captured territories in the north. It is an accumulation of unease at the character of an administration that evokes the Wildean cynic who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. It is the constant hum of petty sleaze, cronyism and a supercilious way with power that makes it hard for liberal-minded Tories to glean any civic pride from association with the ruling party.

That effect should not be overstated. Johnson is still a unique performer: part raconteur, part escapologist, talking his way out of troubles that would sink other leaders. But a consequence of that shtick is the growing gap between heroic language and grubby practice. It is the duality inherent in any failing ideological project that must keep cranking the rhetoric of abstract ideals higher to cover the stoop to ever shabbier methods. The support it generates is widely spread, but maybe also shallow; a popular consumer choice, lacking the connective tissue of shared and consistent beliefs.

The Tories are impatient to cry freedom from Covid, just as they were impatient to declare independence from Brussels, believing that they have been held back, with much pent-up governing to do. In reality, getting Brexit done, then riding out the pandemic has spared them the embarrassment of the empty page where the point of Boris Johnson has yet to be written.

Continued here:

Boris Johnson cries freedom to fill the void where his leadership should be - The Guardian

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on Boris Johnson cries freedom to fill the void where his leadership should be – The Guardian

Freedom of Navigation Operations: A Mission for Unmanned Systems – War on the Rocks

Posted: at 2:51 pm

At first glance, the freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) conducted in the summer of 2023 mirrored previous U.S. actions taken to contest excessive maritime claims in the South China Sea. A U.S. Navy vessel sailed within twelve miles of Mischief Reef while conducting routine training maneuvers. However, in a departure from previous operations, the ship did not engage in man overboard drills as part of that training. It would have been odd to do so, since there were no humans aboard the vessel.

***

As this vignette suggests, the time has come for the U.S. Navy to pass the freedom of navigation mission set to unmanned systems. This shift would provide significant benefits, including substantial cost savings, a reduced risk to human life, increased flexibility in escalation dynamics, and an asymmetric answer to geographically advantaged peer competitors in distant oceans.

Moreover, using unmanned systems for FONOPs could help to establish the desired U.S. government precedent regarding these platforms and the law of the sea. The U.S. Navys proactive demonstration of unmanned system operation across the globe could clearly communicate expected norms regarding their usage under existing conventions and customary law.

A FONOPs Primer

In order to understand the future of FONOPs within the context of unmanned systems, one should first examine the genesis of the U.S. Navys freedom of navigation program, as well as the successes and challenges attributed to it by observers throughout its forty years of existence.

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea codifies customary international legal concepts pertinent to maritime claims. As President Ronald Reagan outlined in his 1983 speech on oceans policy, the United States will exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the convention.

Despite substantial commercial and government support for the convention, the U.S. Senate has not joined over 160 other countries in ratifying the 1982 law of the sea agreement. Initially, American opponents of ratification feared that the conventions provisions for the governance of deep-seabed mining would run counter to domestic interests. More recently, concerns including sovereignty issues and environmental restrictions have prevented the necessary Senate ratification vote from occurring. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama pushed aggressively for ratification, yet failed due to political opposition. And while the current administration has largely remained quiet on any renewed efforts, in 2007 then-Senator Joe Biden led an unsuccessful attempt to move forward with ratification as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Even without congressional ratification of the convention, legal experts cite enduring maritime law traditions that can create widely accepted customary rules without a specific requirement for binding international agreements. Based on this fundamental concept of customary international law, over the last four decades the U.S. freedom of navigation program has combined diplomatic efforts with at-sea operations across the globe, sailing or flying through excessive maritime claims to reinforce the American interpretation of customary maritime claims.

Through these operations, the U.S. government contests claims against allies and antagonists alike with a military presence in the disputed zone. Each year, a number of these excessive claims are contested. In Fiscal Year 2020, for instance, the Department of Defense challenged 28 separate excessive claims made by 19 different countries. Each challenge can represent a larger tempo of operations, as one listed maritime challenge may include multiple passages by U.S. assets throughout the year.

Proponents of FONOPs assert that the program deserves credit for the freedom of the global commons enjoyed by maritime shipping today, the continued expansion of global sea trade over the last forty years, and a normalization of maritime claims in line with convention standards. The 2016 Chinese refusal to recognize the arbitral tribunals decision regarding disputes in the South China Sea bolsters the case for U.S. FONOPs, highlighting the difficulty in enforcing the convention through purely diplomatic efforts at the international level.

FONOPs detractors, meanwhile, perceive the program as unnecessarily offensive in nature, emphasize the persistent threat of collision at sea with resulting escalation concerns, and question whether any behavioral changes can actually be attributed to military contestations.

Activity under the freedom of navigation program, which is approved and directed at the presidential level, has largely remained steady during recent administrations. This trend implies that American leadership values the program and supports the conclusion that FONOPs will remain a vital and visible part of U.S. national security policy going forward.

The Advantages of Unmanned Systems During FONOPs

While forty years have elapsed since FONOPs inception, the tools used to execute the mission in 2021 still resemble those used in 1981. Twenty-first century unmanned systems technology offers opportunities to mitigate past weaknesses and amplify current strengths. By saving money and reducing risk while providing a response to rapidly expanding adversarial fleets, the U.S. Navy can leverage unmanned FONOPs to breathe new life into the program during a vital period in its existence.

An Efficient Use of Assets

The Department of Defense can realize significant and much-needed cost savings by using unmanned platforms for the freedom of navigation mission set. The state-of-the-art Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyer, a likely candidate for completing FONOPs in the twenty-first century, has an estimated unit cost of $1.8 billion versus approximately $35 million for a medium-sized unmanned system prototype. Beyond the reduced initial investment, experts estimate daily operating costs for the manned destroyer at $700,000 versus a $20,000 daily price tag for unmanned surface systems, such as the Sea Hunter. In a time of flat-line Department of Defense budgets and a stated Department of the Navy desire to focus further on unmanned systems, employing drone technology for these operations provides clear cost advantages while aligning with modernization efforts.

Besides monetary savings, the use of unmanned systems for these missions allows more-capable manned platforms to focus on those tasks that require different competences or a human touch. FONOPs fall neatly into the category of dull, dirty, and dangerous operations that best fit unmanned systems. An unmanned system can easily refute a challenged nations excessive maritime claim that requires prior permission for innocent transit by conducting an unannounced straight-line passage through disputed waters, freeing a manned vessel and its crew to conduct more in-depth operations elsewhere.

Robots Can Reduce Risk While Providing Flexibility

In the event of a miscalculation on either side during an unplanned encounter at sea involving unmanned assets, metal and electronics may incur damage, but no human life will be lost. As recent non-FONOP ship collisions have shown, when two large-tonnage vessels collide at sea, a tragic loss of life may result. By removing the potential for this loss of life from a collision in contested waters, the use of unmanned systems during FONOPs allows technology to accomplish a potentially dangerous mission with no requirement for physical human presence.

Beyond the inherent heartbreak involved, the loss of human life also has implications for escalation. A recent study examined the different emotions generated from the loss of an unmanned system versus a manned system, and its findings demonstrate de-escalation advantages from an unmanned loss. In simple terms, the destruction of an unmanned system does not generate the same visceral and escalatory response as the loss of a human life. This vital difference adds flexibility following a collision at sea or a hostile act during FONOPs. While unmanned systems do not negate the potential for an escalation spiral, their use provides de-escalation options to decision-makers that do not exist with manned platforms. As geopolitical tensions continue to grow, opportunities to decrease potential escalation spirals stemming from collisions during FONOPs should not be ignored.

An Asymmetric Response to Being Outnumbered

Much attention in recent years has focused on the impressive scope of Chinese shipbuilding capabilities. In the waters of the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy already finds itself outnumbered even more significantly so when one includes the tremendous size and coercive capabilities of the Chinese maritime militia. According to the 2020 annual Department of Defense report to Congress, China has built the largest navy in the world, comprising 350 ships compared to the U.S. Navys 293 ships. This disparity exists primarily in smaller hull classes, and further emphasizes the benefit of using lower-cost unmanned systems to even the numerical playing field. The maxim that quantity has a quality all its own will likely hold true in a dynamic twenty-first century battlespace. As recent budget submissions demonstrate, the U.S. Navy simply does not have the necessary capital to match adversary numbers at traditional major surface combatant shipbuilding costs.

Low-cost unmanned systems will facilitate the dispersion of the naval assets necessary to ensure the successful conduct of peacetime FONOPs, while also enabling the execution of the distributed maritime operations wartime concept. The deployment of unmanned systems to counter current asymmetry creates an achievable and efficient option to execute assigned missions, such as FONOPs, while countering increasing naval proliferation across the globe.

Concerns Addressed

The near-term extensive use of unmanned systems during FONOPs necessitates both prudent planning and measured operational execution. The U.S. government should establish a favorable precedent for the legal status of unmanned systems under existing conventions and enforce suitable repercussions for external interference with unmanned systems operating in accordance with customary international law.

Setting a Precedent

There is debate in legal circles over whether unmanned systems qualify as warships a classification advantageous to the execution of freedom of navigation missions. Unfortunately, any comprehensive solution to this complex question will likely suffer due to the frayed relationships in todays global environment, which make consensus difficult.

With this obstacle in mind, the best path forward for ensuring unmanned systems ability to conduct operations in accordance with accepted standards is through clear communication of intent and routine usage across the globe. Just as the U.S. government has relied on its interpretation of convention provisions to dictate its actions around the world and reinforce customary international law, a transparent and publicly accessible U.S. policy on unmanned system use on the seas could combine with at-sea operations to provide the necessary foundation for global acceptance.

Signaling Resolve During Unmanned FONOPs

Important questions also remain as to whether challenged nations will treat unmanned systems in accordance with the norms afforded to manned systems during FONOPs. Numerous instances already exist of nations capturing or destroying unmanned systems, including the shooting down of a U.S. Navy surveillance drone by Iran in 2019. In that case, media reporting indicated that Iranian forces specifically chose their target based on its unmanned nature in an attempt to avoid further escalation. If an adversary believes they can target unmanned systems without any retribution, effective unmanned system usage across all mission sets will suffer.

With that consideration in mind, clear policy guidance prior to the execution of unmanned system FONOPs can signal the resolve and set the expectations necessary to ensure successful operations. The U.S. government should credibly and consistently communicate that any actions taken to inhibit the navigation of these systems will be met with determination. Signaling could be accomplished via pre-negotiated international agreements or clear warning statements disseminated via the appropriate forum.

By credibly signaling resolve with respect to the execution of unmanned FONOPs, the U.S. government could provide escalation expectations and manage risk effectively. The same escalation options available for the loss of a manned asset would be available for the loss of an unmanned asset, but with additional and less-escalatory rungs to climb along the way. These additional escalation steps include using manned assets to accomplish the mission, or a proportional military response when merited. In practice, certain and likely most circumstances will lend themselves to unmanned systems usage while rare situations may require more traditional means of contestation.

Preventing Technology Loss

Another commonly mentioned concern is the potential loss of technology resulting from the loss of unmanned systems. In this scenario, an unmanned system taken captive by a rival nation results in the loss of sensitive technology or information. This drama has already played out in real time, as witnessed by the capture of a U.S. Navy oceanographic survey glider in 2016 and subsequent Chinese technological advances.

Before condemning unmanned systems for this fault, however, one should note that this problem is not unique to them. The 2001 emergency landing of a manned U.S. Navy EP-3 in Hainan, China, resulted in the loss of sensitive materials. Going back further, the capture of the USS Pueblo and its crew in 1968 by North Korean forces also infamously compromised classified information and hardware, including ten encryption machines and thousands of pages of top secret documents.

Notably, unmanned systems may experience a higher likelihood of attempted tampering or interference than traditional assets due to the same traits that contribute to their de-escalation advantages. Ensuring the protection of sensitive information lies not in eschewing the use of unmanned systems, but rather in ensuring fail-safe methods for destroying relevant data when in danger of exploitation. As with their manned counterparts, unmanned systems operations should be approached from a continuing perspective of potential exposure with mitigations in place to avoid technological theft.

While manned systems can resort to a human and an axe in attempts to destroy equipment, unmanned systems hardware needs to automatically revert to a zeroized, or unusable, state in case of distress. Initiation of this process can be triggered by a command from its home station, the shock from a significant collision, or an extended loss of communication with its handler, inhibiting the loss of critically sensitive information and exploitation of the hardware itself.

Perhaps unexpectedly, unmanned systems possess at least one advantage in this realm. Unmanned systems negate the adversarys ability to leverage human crews for nefarious purposes, such as the creation of damaging propaganda or the receipt of additional sensitive information via interrogation.

Unmanned Systems as the Platform of Choice for FONOPs

By properly executing a transition to unmanned system FONOPs, the United States can use technological advances to ensure a continuing ability to provide a legal order that will, among other things, facilitate peaceful international uses of the oceans. Properly leveraged, unmanned systems will execute this mission at a significant cost savings, with a reduction in risk, and at a scale needed in a twenty-first century defined by great-power competition.

Trevor Prouty is an active-duty Navy commander with more than 20 years of service. He is currently the Navy Fellow assigned to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program.He has served in three helicopter aviation tours, most recently leading asquadron during the adoption of the MQ-8B Fire Scout, an unmannedhelicopter system.

The views expressed here do not represent those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or the U.S. government.

Image: U.S. Navy (Photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Shannon Renfroe)

Read more from the original source:

Freedom of Navigation Operations: A Mission for Unmanned Systems - War on the Rocks

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on Freedom of Navigation Operations: A Mission for Unmanned Systems – War on the Rocks

We have to break through that wall: inside Americas battle for gun control – The Guardian

Posted: at 2:51 pm

The modern iteration of the National Rifle Association as a political force opposed to any measure of gun safety was familiar to Fred Guttenberg even before his 14-year-old daughter, Jaime, was killed along with 16 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida, on 14 February 2018.

The groups response to Parkland was the same as after 26 people, including 20 children, were killed at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, the same as after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, after Sutherland Springs, after Pulse Nightclub, amid gun violence that claims 100 lives a day in the US: the only solution to gun violence is more guns, everywhere. Or, to quote the NRAs longtime executive vice-president, Wayne LaPierre, following Sandy Hook: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

The day after his daughter was killed, a distraught Guttenberg attempted to put words to the unfathomable at a vigil. My job is to protect my children, he said, voice cracking, and I sent my kid to school, where Jaime was supposed to be safe. When he returned home, the first thing Guttenberg said to friends and family was Im going to break the fucking gun lobby, he told the Guardian. Because I knew the NRA and I knew their influence.

The Price of Freedom, a new documentary on the history of the NRA and the toll of its mythology, reveals, in meticulous detail, the artifice and apparatus behind that influence. The searing 95-minute film, directed by Judd Ehrlich, surveys the National Rifle Associations evolution from its founding as a hunting sports club in 1871 to the most powerful gun lobbyist group in the country an insular and dogmatic organization, ruthless in its politicization of gun ownership and unyielding in its fantasy of guns as central to American identity. The NRAs figuring of gun culture as synonymous with Founding Fathers patriotism, and safety measures as antithetical to Americas founding principles, has become so saturated into the American populace, Ehrlich told the Guardian. And we have to understand that if we want to combat that.

It wasnt always this way; as the film explains, gun control is as much a part of Americas founding as the second amendment. Delaware banned firearms at election sites in 1776, for example; Louisiana prohibited concealed carry of firearms in 1813. The NRAs deification of the cowboy figure the lone ranger striding in with a gun to save the day, embodied by the former western star Ronald Reagan, the first president endorsed by the NRA is a fantasy of vigilante lawlessness. States across the country had, by the late 1800s, adopted gun safety measures that seem like political fantasies in 2021: regulation of gunpowder (Texas, 1839), compulsory registration of weapons (Illinois, 1885), bans on ownership for dangerous persons (Kansas, 1868), prohibition of firearms in churches and schools (Arizona, 1889).

With the input of historians and journalists who have covered the NRA for years, The Price of Freedom traces the metastasis of the NRAs absolutist rhetoric into legislation that has contributed to an epidemic of gun violence in the US far greater than any other developed nation. The film focuses on a little-known but extremely consequential leadership coup in 1977, when former president Harlon Carter, who changed the spelling of his name to evade attention for a murder committed when he was 17, ousted most of the organizations leadership at its annual convention in Cincinnati, Ohio. Carter, who held a sweeping and ravenous view of the second amendment, shifted the NRAs focus from hunting sports and environmental conservation the group supported the Gun Control Act of 1968 to political lobbying for gun rights, and positioned the NRA as a PR-savvy organization ready to amass power at moments of fear or unrest.

When you look at all those things and you think, what if this powerful organization had gone in a different direction, its hard not to conclude that we would be at a very different place in terms of how we talk about guns in this country, said Ehrlich. Take, for instance, the proliferation of so-called Stand Your Ground laws, which essentially allow citizens to shoot to kill at their own discretion a convenient loophole for racial bias, among many disastrous outcomes. The Price of Freedom draws a straight line from the politicization of gun ownership as a natural, fundamental right at least for white people, as the NRA had no issue limiting the second amendment when it was the Black Panthers accessing guns to video of Kyle Rittenhouse, a white teenager from Illinois, patrolling the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, in with an AR-15 in August 2020, acting as a vigilante unimpeded by police, even after he shot and killed two Black Lives Matter protesters. Guttenberg taped his interview for the film during the early afternoon of 6 January, as an armed mob of Trump supporters stormed the nations Capitol.

Guttenberg, who channeled his grief into activism for gun safety and the marginalization of the NRA, has been vocal about cracking its stranglehold on the status quo of no action in Washington. One of the brilliant things the NRA did was create this environment where as a country, we believe gun safety legislation can never pass through Washington DC this country cant do it, he said. Guttenberg is one of several figures in the film whose advocacy for commonsense gun safety legislation is rooted in losses to gun violence, including Representative Lucy McBath, whose 17-year-old son was shot by a white man after an argument over loud music; X Gonzalez, a founder of the March for Our Lives movement; and Gabby Giffords, the congresswoman from Arizona shot in the head during a meeting with constituents in 2011.

We have to break through that wall, Guttenberg said, pointing to the confirmation of David Chipman to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the first permanent director since 2015, and legislation for background checks as immediate priorities under the Biden administrations push for gun reform. And once you do, and lets do it with background checks, then its no longer a matter of whether or not you can or cant, its about whats possible. Listen, after my daughter was killed, we did what seemed impossible we got gun safety legislation passed in Florida. So it is no longer about not being able to do it, its about what more can we do.

The Price of Freedom points to the aftermath of Parkland as a turning point for the NRA the March for Our Lives movement sparked a strong public and corporate backlash to the group; the 2018 midterm elections brought candidates who ran on gun reform, including McBath and Crow, to Washington. Under public pressure, companies such as Dicks Sporting Goods stopped selling semi-automatic rifles and prohibited all sales to customers under age 21. The NRA faces financial crisis, internal revolt and potential dissolution after an investigation by the New York attorney generals office revealed corruption and fiscal malfeasance by its leadership, particularly LaPierre.

Whether or not the organization continues on, the NRAs cultivation of an entire community and identity around an extreme view of the second amendment will probably outlive it, casting a long shadow over American life. But Guttenberg echoed several figures in the film with an eye on changing what can seem impossibly entrenched. I have no choice but to remain hopeful and optimistic, he said. And when I go across the country and meet people in every community, even the communities where people say, ah, thats a gun community, everywhere I go, people actually believe that we can do more.

I dont hate the second amendment thats always been the big lie. I hate gun violence, said Guttenberg. So my hope is all based in the idea that everyone else hates gun violence, too. And if we can agree on that, then lets fix this together.

The rest is here:

We have to break through that wall: inside Americas battle for gun control - The Guardian

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on We have to break through that wall: inside Americas battle for gun control – The Guardian

SERAP Wants Court To Compel Disclosure On What Buhari Did With N9.7trn Overdrafts From CBN – thewillnigeria

Posted: at 2:51 pm

July 05, (THEWILL) The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit, asking the court to compel President Muhammadu Buhari to disclose spending details of the overdrafts and loans obtained from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) since May 29, 2015, including the projects on which the overdrafts have been spent, and repayments of all overdrafts to date.

SERAP is also seeking an order to compel the President to explain and clarify whether the $25bn (N9.7trn) overdraft reportedly obtained from the CBN is within the five-percent limit of the actual revenue of the government for 2020.

The suit followed SERAPs Freedom of Information (FoI) request to President Buhari, stating that: Disclosing details of overdrafts and repayments would enable Nigerians to hold the government to account for its fiscal management and ensure that public funds are not mismanaged or diverted.

In the suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/559/2021 filed last week at the Federal High Court, Abuja, SERAP is also seeking: an order directing and compelling President Buhari to disclose details of overdrafts taken from the CBN by successive governments between 1999 and 2015.

SERAP claimed that: Secrecy and the lack of public scrutiny of the details of CBN overdrafts and repayments is antithetical to the public interest, the common good, the countrys international legal obligations, and a fundamental breach of constitutional oath of office.

Joined in the suit as respondents are the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN; the Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning, Zainab Ahmed; and the Governor of CBN, Godwin Emefiele.

SERAP is also arguing that: Ensuring transparency and accountability in the spending of CBN overdrafts and loans would promote prudence in debt management, reduce any risks of corruption and mismanagement, and help the government to avoid the pitfalls of excessive debt.

According to SERAP: By the combined reading of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Freedom of Information Act, the UN Convention against Corruption, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, there are transparency obligations imposed on the government to disclose information to the public concerning details of CBN overdrafts, loans and repayments to date.

The Nigerian Constitution, Freedom of Information Act, and these treaties rest on the basic principle that citizens should have access to information regarding their governments activities.

The suit filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers Kolawole Oluwadare and Ms Adelanke Aremo, read in part: Transparency and accountability in the spending of CBN overdrafts would also ensure that public funds are properly spent, reduce the level of public debt, and improve the ability of the government to invest in essential public goods and services, such as quality education, healthcare, and clean water.

It is the primary responsibility of the government to ensure public access to these services in order to lift millions of Nigerians out of poverty and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.

Transparency and accountability in the spending of CBN overdrafts and loans would also improve the ability of the government to effectively respond to the COVID-19 crisis. This means that the government would not have to choose between saving lives or making debt payments.

The recent overdraft of $25.6bn (about N9.7trn) reportedly obtained from the CBN would appear to be above the five-percent limit of the actual revenue of the Federal Government for 2020, that is, N3.9trn, prescribed by Section 38(2) of the CBN Act 2007. SERAP notes that five-percent of N3.9trn is N197bn.

While Section 38(1) of the CBN Act allows the Bank to grant overdrafts to the Federal Government to address any temporary deficiency of budget revenue, sub-section 2 provides that any outstanding overdraft shall not exceed five-percent of the previous years actual revenue of the Federal Government.

Similarly, Section 38(3) requires all overdrafts to be repaid as soon as possible and by the end of the financial year in which the overdrafts are granted.

The CBN is prohibited from granting any further overdrafts until all outstanding overdrafts have been fully repaid. Under the CBN Act, no repayment shall take the form of a promising note or such other promise to pay at a future date, treasury bills, bonds or other forms of security which is required to be underwritten by the Bank.

Similarly, the Fiscal Responsibility Act provides in section 41 that the government shall only borrow for capital expenditure and human development. Under the Act, the government shall ensure that the level of public debt as a proportion of national income is held at a sustainable level.

Section 44 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act requires the government to specify the purpose of any borrowing, which must be applied towards capital expenditures, and to carry out cost-benefit analysis, including the economic and social benefits of any borrowing. Any borrowing should serve the public good, and be guided by human rights principles.

SERAP has consistently recommended to the Federal Government to reduce its level of borrowing and to look at other options of how to finance its budget, such as reducing the costs of governance, and addressing systemic and widespread corruption in ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) that have been documented by the Office of the Auditor-General of the Federation.

Our requests are brought in the public interest, and in keeping with the requirements of the Nigerian Constitution; the Freedom of Information Act; the Fiscal Responsibility Act; the Central Bank Act; the Debt Management Office Act; and the countrys international legal obligations.

There is a statutory obligation on the respondents, being public officers in their respective public offices, to proactively keep, organize and maintain all information or records about CBN overdrafts, loans, and repayments in a manner that facilitates public access to such information or records.

Mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public duty in the performance in which the applicant has a sufficient legal interest.

Unless the reliefs sought by SERAP are granted, the respondents will not provide SERAP with the information requested and will continue to be in breach of their constitutional responsibilities and the countrys international legal obligations and commitments.

No date has been fixed for hearing of the suit.

Read the original post:

SERAP Wants Court To Compel Disclosure On What Buhari Did With N9.7trn Overdrafts From CBN - thewillnigeria

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on SERAP Wants Court To Compel Disclosure On What Buhari Did With N9.7trn Overdrafts From CBN – thewillnigeria

Forum, July 5: The pandemic is still threatening the entire globe – Valley News

Posted: at 2:51 pm

Published: 7/4/2021 10:00:03 PM

Modified: 7/4/2021 10:00:05 PM

As summer comes into full swing in the Upper Valley and COVID-19 restrictions are lifted, it feels as though the nightmare of the pandemic is finally coming to a close. However, in a global sense, the effects of the pandemic are still crushing.

Prior to the pandemic, 1 in 9 people were hungry worldwide and 736 million people lived in extreme poverty, according to a 2018 World Health Organization report. Because of the pandemic, there has been a global reduction in job opportunities, lower wages, less access to health care assistance, difficulties transitioning to remote learning and food insecurity. All of these issues contribute to a rise in hunger and extreme poverty. Currently, the pandemic is slated to push 150 million more people into extreme poverty globally, reversing decades of progress.

So, not only has the already-staggering rate of global hunger and extreme poverty increased due to the pandemic, only 0.9% of people in low-income countries are fully vaccinated. This means that the pandemic is not even close to over in these areas, and conditions are worsening for those living in these nations.

The presence of large unvaccinated populations also is a risk for everyone. We have already seen variants appearing, and variants will continue to do so until we reach a sufficient number of fully vaccinated people. This is why it is essential for Congress to support a coordinated COVAX initiative to globally distribute vaccines and create a plan to share the 553 million excess vaccinations that will be left over after every American is fully vaccinated.

Additionally, we need to urge our leaders to prioritize lifesaving aid in subsequent COVID-19 relief bills and in the fiscal 2022 appropriations bill for the State Department, USAID and other development agencies.

CLARISSE BROWN

Grantham

Professor Randall Balmers great op-ed column on our founders intent describes the logjam we are now in with some Supreme Court justices (Originalism and the Second Amendment, June 6). I believe that the original intent is clear, because they wrote it down.

It is in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And it is in the Constitution: We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If the current mass shootings are someones idea of domestic Tranquility, Id hate to see what chaos is. If unalienable Rights include freedom of and from religion Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof I wonder what the founders would think about laws based on some churches teaching that are not fair to everyone, or churches supported by town taxes (from the 19th century, now done away with), or the required Sunday closing of stores, etc. (which lasted into the 20th century, now done away with), or reproductive freedom and privacy of intimacy being debated again in the guise protection.

HOWARD SHAFFER

Enfield

The University of Illinois is planning to heat its Urbana campus with a new, underground nuclear reactor with a fuel cartridge that lasts 20 years. The university is working with Seattle-based Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp. to partially replace a coal-fired plant, seeking Department of Energy funding and preparing a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license application.

Dartmouth College has already rebuilt its hot-water circulating district heating system in anticipation of plans for a wood chip burning plant, now dropped. Dartmouth continues to burn 3.5 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil annually as it seeks a better energy source. The Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp. reactor generates 15 megawatts of heat, approximately the demand from the Dartmouth campus.

ROBERT HARGRAVES

Hanover

The rest is here:

Forum, July 5: The pandemic is still threatening the entire globe - Valley News

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on Forum, July 5: The pandemic is still threatening the entire globe – Valley News

FTSE 100 Slips on Weak Data and Inflationary Concerns – Morningstar.com

Posted: at 2:51 pm

Market News: FTSE 100 7,100 -64.03 -0.89% FTSE 250 22,895.36 -127.04 -0.55% FTSE AIM 1262.87 -2.47 0.20%

The FTSE 100 fell 0.89% on Tuesday as weaker economic data drove markets lower and stronger sterling weighed on overseas revenue earners. "European markets have slumped alongside US indices, which appear to be resurfacing from their extended weekend with a largely pessimistic tone," IG Group's Joshua Mahony says. Inflation concerns also appear to have gripped U.K. investors Tuesday after a report from the government's public spending watchdog cautioned that high public debt levels are more vulnerable than ever to rising interest rates, AJ Bell's Danni Hewson says. "Today has felt like an adjustment off the back of yesterday's 'freedom focused' boost," Ms. Hewson says.

Kinovo's FY 2021 Pretax Profit Dropped on Lower Revenue

Kinovo PLC reported Tuesday a significant decline in pretax profit for fiscal 2021 as a result of a Covid-19 driven fall in revenue, and said that it is confident about its future.

---

Microsaic Systems Says 1H Revenue Recovered

Microsaic Systems PLC said Tuesday that first-half revenue rose sharply and exceeded pre-pandemic levels after a change of business model in early 2021.

---

Mulberry to End Paris Lease Early, Return When International Tourism Recovers

Mulberry Group PLC said Tuesday that its wholly owned subsidiary in France has agreed to terminate the lease of its store in Paris and exit the property early for 13.2 million pounds ($18.3 million).

---

Mattioli Woods Expects to Report FY 2021 Profit in Line With Views

Mattioli Woods PLC said Tuesday that it expects to report profit in line with management expectations for the year ended May 31.

---

Globalworth Mulls Implications of Recent Change of Control

Globalworth Real Estate Investments Ltd. said on Tuesday that it was notified late on Monday by CPI Property Group SA and Aroundtown SA about a number of transactions related to their existing holding, which have resulted in Zakiono Enterprises Ltd. holding a total of 51.5% of shares in the company.

---

Building-Materials Distributor Lords Group to Raise GBP30 Mln in AIM Float

Lords Group Trading PLC, a distributor of building materials in the U.K., said Tuesday that it will raise 30 million pounds ($41.5 million) as part of its proposed initial public offering on London's junior AIM market.

---

New Amsterdam Invest Raises EUR49.1 Mln in Amsterdam Listing

New Amsterdam Invest NV said Tuesday that it has listed on Euronext Amsterdam and raised funds in a placing with a total offer value of 49.1 million euros ($58.3 million).

---

Logistics Software Company Microlise Group Plans to Float on London's AIM

Microlise Group PLC said Tuesday that it plans to float on London's junior AIM market.

---

Kavango Resources Directors Invest GBP60,000 in Company

Kavango Resources PLC said Tuesday that directors Ben Turney and Mike Moles have invested a further 60,000 pounds ($83.070) in the company, taking total funds raised under a placing disclosed Monday to GBP2 million.

---

Oil Companies Are Ordered to Help Cover $7.2 Billion Cleanup Bill in Gulf of Mexico

Some of the world's largest oil companies have been ordered to pay part of a $7.2 billion tab to retire hundreds of aging wells in the Gulf of Mexico that they used to own, capping a case that legal experts say is a harbinger of future battles over cleanup costs.

---

CMO Group to Raise GBP27.3 Mln in London IPO

CMO Group PLC, an online building-materials retailer, said Tuesday that it plans to raise 27.3 million pounds ($37.8 million) at a valuation of GBP95 million, as part of its initial public offering on London's junior AIM market.

---

TP Group Appoints David Lindsay as Interim CEO

TP Group PLC said Tuesday that it has appointed David Lindsay as interim chief executive officer with immediate effect.

Lloyd's of London Insurers Battle Back from Downturn

1254 GMT - Lloyd's of London insurers are acting to bounce back from an industry downturn, says J.P. Morgan Cazenove. While the Lloyd's sub-sector was one of the best-performing in European insurance between 2008 and 2017, it deteriorated after 2017 due to consecutive years of heavy catastrophe losses, casualty-related reserving concerns and the pandemic impact, JPM says. "There remains some uncertainties around casualty and cyber risks in particular, but we believe management teams are taking steps to address them," JPM analyst Ashik Musaddi says, upgrading Beazley and Hiscox to overweight from neutral. Still, it cuts Lancashire Holdings to neutral from overweight, saying it's more exposed to climate-change risks through higher catastrophe losses, as well as competition from third-party capital in reinsurance.

---

Ultra Electronics Update Reinforces Strong Balance Sheet an Asset

1134 GMT - Ultra Electronics' 1H underlying performance was strong and exceeded expectations with an order book ahead of last year, Jefferies says. Net debt at the end of May was GBP32 million helped by strong advance payments and lower-than-expected capital expenditure, the U.S. bank says. Although there is some benefit from capex and R&D being lower than expected, the programs on which the defense-equipment provider has secured work promised good order intake at some point, Jefferies says. The update largely reflects what was likely to unfold in fiscal 2021 and reinforces the view that the strong balance sheet is an asset, Jefferies says.

---

Sainsbury Sales Rise But It Needs to Keep Up Momentum

1100 GMT - J Sainsbury needs to stay on the ball despite a first-quarter sales boost and an increase in full-year profit guidance, AJ Bell says. Bell says the company is benefiting from continued online shopping after the pandemic, development of new delivery partnerships and price-cutting. That could increase potential takeover interest in the company and its rivals following a recommended $8.7 billion takeover bid for rival Wm. Morrison Supermarkets, the brokerage says. "A year into his tenure and Chief Executive Simon Thomas is sitting relatively pretty, but the supermarket sector is an extremely competitive and demanding one, so there's no room for complacency, particularly given the uncertainty over the direction Morrisons will take under its new ownership," Bell's investment director Russ Mould says. Shares gain 0.8%.

---

Land Securities, British Land Face Downgrades on Looming Costs, Jefferies Says

1044 GMT - The cost of doing business for Land Securities and British Land is rising, with earnings dependency on shops and retail and impending hits from decarbonizing costs, Jefferies says. Jefferies reduces its dividend forecasts for the two major British real-estate companies. Given looming business model impairments, which at their most extreme could significantly weaken these business, the U.S. bank cuts its ratings for British Land and Land Securities to hold from buy. Instead, Jefferies reiterates it buy rating on "beds, meds and sheds" real estate trusts, like Tritax Big Box, LXI REIT, Big Yellow and PRS. Shares in British Land are down 3.6% at 503.6 pence, and Land Securities is down 3.6% at 679.6 pence.

---

Purplebricks' New Pricing Model Should Build Up Share Price

1036 GMT - Online real estate agent Purplebricks is launching a new pricing model in July following trials in the north west of England, Peel Hunt says. Purplebricks' new money-back guarantee and simplified two-tier offer should support its medium-term 10% share ambition, which in turn is likely to result in 20% revenue growth a year and deliver significant upside to the current share price, the brokerage says. "As has been highlighted elsewhere, a lack of stock is a wider concern for the market, but the group is hopeful of an improving picture post the summer," Peel Hunt says, retaining its buy rating and target price of 120 pence.

Contact: London NewsPlus, Dow Jones Newswires; +44-20-7842-931

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

July 06, 2021 12:11 ET (16:11 GMT)

See more here:

FTSE 100 Slips on Weak Data and Inflationary Concerns - Morningstar.com

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on FTSE 100 Slips on Weak Data and Inflationary Concerns – Morningstar.com