Daily Archives: May 17, 2022

Reports that the US Supreme Court will overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution has led to a flurry of commentary and speculation about that likely decisions effect on the 2022 elections. A new survey, however, raises doubts that it will be a transformative issue.

A recent SurveyUSA poll conducted for KSTP television sheds some light on the role of abortion in Minnesotas 2022 electoral politics. The survey queried 725 state adults about their abortion opinions and how those opinions might affect their votes in Novembers state elections. The May 5 May 10 survey, weighted by gender, age, education and home ownership to reflect the state population, has a margin of error 4.4 percent.

Fifty-one percent of Minnesota adults opted for keeping Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. The survey did not, however, ask respondents if they knew the actual content of that court decision. The key divide in the survey concerned respondents differing views of the proper availability of abortion procedures. Thirty percent wanted abortion always legal, 25 percent wanted abortion permitted with some limitations, 26 percent wanted it available only for cases of rape, incest and saving the life of the mother and 12 percent wanted it always illegal.

The major ideological and partisan divide was between those wanting abortion to be always legal and those wanting it mostly or always illegal. Fifty-two percent of Democrats and 58 percent of liberals opted for abortion being always legal. In contrast, 56 percent of Republicans and conservatives wanted it mostly or totally illegal.

Article continues after advertisement

What was the presence of this great divide among key voter groups? A gender gap of about 7 percent existed between men and women, with men more in favor of restrictions than women.

The crucial swing groups in the Minnesota electorate are suburban residents and political independents. Among suburbanites, 27 percent wanted abortion always legal, the same level of support evident among rural poll respondents. Thirty-eight percent of those residing in the suburbs wanted abortion to be usually illegal. Similar percentages obtained among independents, with 27 percent opting for no limits on abortion and 42 percent preferring it to be usually illegal.

One crucial question for 2022 is how important the abortion issue looms in Minnesotans voting decisions. Those advocating no limits to abortion clearly have intensity on their side, with 54 percent saying the issue would be very important in their voting choices. Those who supported making abortion illegal under many or all circumstances were about 20 points less likely to say it would be very important in their 2022 voting.

Steven Schier

The major political opportunity for Minnesota Democrats and liberals, then, lies with stoking intensity among their base supporters about the abortion issue. Fifty-one percent of Democrats, 49 percent of liberals and an impressive 77 percent of those very liberal indicated that a candidates abortion position would very likely influence their vote for that candidate.

This part of the electorate, however, is always likely to turn out in considerable numbers, so it is far from clear that many additional votes will come from them in 2022 because of the abortion issue. What can come from this segment of the electorate, however, is additional volunteer activism and financial support for campaigns. Expect the state DFL to spur that activity among their intense abortion supporters.

In other parts of the Minnesota electorate, however, it is not very evident from this survey that abortion will transform the states 2022 electoral landscape. Countering liberal activism on this issue, 51 percent of very conservative respondents also indicate that a candidates position on abortion is very likely to influence their vote. The 9 percent of the sample who are very conservative adults comprise a group half again larger than the 6 percent of respondents who are very liberal.

Article continues after advertisement

The issue also is far less important for those who are political independents or who reside in the suburbs who often determine the direction of state politics. As Julie Roginsky, a national Democratic consultant recently noted about 2022 voters thinking about abortion, Is this something they lose sleep over every night? No. What they do lose sleep over is, I cant fill up my gas tank, its really expensive. I cant afford to send my kid to college, its really expensive. Any voter who will vote purely based on (Roe) is an incredibly committed voter who will be coming out in the midterms, anyway.

Roginskys point applies to Minnesota voters. Given the many issues besetting Minnesotans, abortion seems be just one in a large crowd of concerns. It may help Democrats turnout at the margins, but its influence on the overall state results, as evident in the surveys findings, may well not extend beyond that limited effect.

Steven Schier is the Emeritus Congdon professor of Political Science at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota.

MinnPost's in-depth, independent news is free for all to access no paywall or subscriptions. Will you help us keep it this way by supporting our nonprofit newsroom with a tax-deductible donation today?

Read the original here:

Will abortion dominate the 2022 Minnesota election? - MinnPost

At their first televised debate four weeks ago, Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese were asked by an audience member how each would help his kids afford to buy their own home. Neither had much to offer.

Now, in the final week of the campaign, housing affordability is a red-hot point of difference between the parties.

Each plan reflects the core values of the party pushing them, but both sidestep the major reforms needed to improve housing affordability for all.

On the plus side, at least both are somewhat limited, which means neither should push up house prices dramatically if implemented, contrary to some hyperbolic warnings.

The Coalitions plan, announced on Sunday, is to allow first-home buyers to withdraw up to 40% of their superannuation balance, up to a maximum of A$50,000, for a mortgage deposit. They must return the amount withdrawn, plus or minus any capital gain or loss, when they sell the property.

This amounts to borrowing from your super account. You lose the return your super savings would have accrued, but you gain the return on your house, in the form of avoided rent and any capital gain.

Read more: View from The Hill: Scott Morrison tells Liberal launch 'I'm just warming up', as he pitches on home ownership

The concept is similar in principle to a recommendation of the recent parliamentary inquiry into housing affordability, chaired by Liberal MP Jason Falinski, calling for super balances to be used as collateral for home loans.

But allowing buyers to actually withdraw money from their super may require super funds to change their investment strategies investing more in higher-liquidity, lower-return assets which might be problematic for some super funds with a lot of younger members.

Around a quarter of all homes sold are to first-home buyers, amounting to around 150,000 houses in the past year. While all first-home buyers would be eligible, not everyone would access the scheme, nor use it in the same way.

Some wont have enough super for it to make much difference. Some will choose not to use the scheme because they dont want to draw down their super.

Some will offset part of their own private saving or take out a smaller loan. Some will get into the market a little earlier than they otherwise would have. And some will get into the market when they otherwise would not have.

While some have claimed the Coalitions policy would undermine peoples security in retirement, in fact the opposite is the case.

Home ownership and superannuation are the two pillars of independent financial security in retirement. Owning a home will be preferable to super for many because it is exempt from the pension assets test.

And given housing is by far the biggest form of consumption, owning a home is a far less risky form of retirement savings, albeit potentially at a lower return.

What really matters is the total quantum of retirement assets, and that those assets are allocated in the way that best secures their retirement. So a scheme that enables portability between different forms of retirement saving makes sense.

Labors plan is to become an equity partner in 10,000 homes a year. It will chip in up to 40% of the cost of a new home, and 30% for an existing home.

To qualify, individuals must earn less than $90,000 a year, and couples a combined $120,000 a year. There will be a cap on the property value, according to location. In Sydney this will be up to $950,000.

Labors scheme is far more generous than the Coalitions, but it also covers far fewer people.

The 10,000 lucky buyers a year who qualify will be able to finance a property worth an extra $380,000. In contrast, the Coalitions scheme gives buyers up to $250,000 more in purchasing power (but a lot less for the vast majority with lower super balances).

Labors policy also entails a very large subsidy.

If you or I invested 40% in an investment property, wed also receive 40% of the rental income. Under Labors plan, the government wont. Taxpayers will therefore gift up to 40% of the rent the occupier would otherwise have paid worth up to around $15,000 a year forever.

A small portion will be offset by the owner-occupier picking up the govermnments share of rates, insurance, and maintenance. But the rest is gravy. Thats why it costs more than $80 million a year.

In previous shared-equity schemes (proposed as far back as 2003) the lender was to chip in a proportion of the equity, but took a higher proportion of the gain to compensate for this loss.

The income limit of $90,000 is also well above the median income of $61,000, making the subsidy a generous form of middle-class welfare. Like a lottery for a lucky few.

Labor argues the scheme will make money for taxpayers through capital gains when properties are eventually sold. But consider that instead the government could invest $10 billion a year in listed property trusts, which would provide a lower-risk portfolio of housing assets at a far higher return. So, relatively speaking, Labors policy would run at a loss.

Both policies attempt to improve housing affordability by addressing the demand side of the market. That means they both suffer from the problem of all such schemes: by increasing buyers purchasing power, they push up prices.

But commentary suggesting either will create a house price explosion is overstated in my view.

First-home buyers are about a quarter of the market. And about half of all 40-year-olds have less than $80,000 in their super, which means the maximum they could withdraw under the Coalitions scheme is $30,000. And its not a first home owners grant - participants have skin in the game.

Labors plan is of course capped at 10,000 places.

I expect both parties schemes to put some modest upward pressure on house prices in the short term as all schemes focused on demand do blunting some of the help they offer. The Coalitions scheme a bit more so given it will extend to more buyers, albeit at a lower amount.

Read more: For first homebuyers, it's Labor's Help to Buy versus the Coalition's New Home Guarantee. Which is better?

Its hard for me to get too enthused about any scheme that increases demand but does nothing about the supply side, which is the ultimate source of high house prices.

Australias population has doubled since 1970, and yet we all live, more or less, in the same places, fighting over the same bits of land. With greater density, the cost of that land rises. We can only contain housing costs by using that land more efficiently, or having people move to where land is more plentiful.

Increasing housing supply isnt simply a case of building more houses. Its also about having the right kind of homes in the right locations. On that, devolving decision making down to the street level, as proposed in the United Kingdom, is a promising idea.

And Labors plan to set up a National Housing Supply and Affordability Council is a welcome development that will hopefully help achieve some progress.

Read more: More affordable housing with less homelessness is possible if only Australia would learn from Nordic nations

Tax and transfer policy also plays a role. State government stamp duty discourages turnover, which prevents better housing matches, driving up prices. Exempting the family home from federal taxation and the assets test for the pension does the same, discouraging downsizing.

The Coalitions proposal, backed by Labor, to allow people to sell their house, downsize, and put the proceeds in super will help. But we need more.

Negative gearing is a perennial villain but is over-hyped. Its not clear it has a meaningful effect on house prices, and removing it actually introduces a distortion into the tax system. The real culprit is the overly generous 50% discount on capital gains tax, which is why people use negative gearing in the first place.

Read more: Election surprise. Negative gearing isnt a rort but something else is

After the reception received by an ambitious (albeit somewhat misguided) tax policy agenda at the 2019 election, it may be a while before we make any meaningful progress on that front. For now, the choice between the major parties is between these relatively limited demand-side schemes. Take your pick.

Read this article:

Super for housing or the government as a co-owner: how Liberal and Labor home-buyer schemes compare - The Conversation Indonesia

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) Orrin Hatch, shown in 2018, died last month. The late senator ranks among the most important and influential political figures in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

| May 11, 2022, 1:00 p.m.

He defeated a popular Democratic senator, arguing that three terms were enough, and then proceeded to serve more than twice as long (seven terms) longer than any Republican in Senate history.

During those 42 years, this conservative loyalist teamed up with a liberal lion, Sen. Ted Kennedy, to create the Childrens Health Insurance Program and the Americans with Disability Act.

He eventually became among the staunchest defenders of Donald Trump, shepherding through a major tax overhaul and helping to shape the conservative majority of todays Supreme Court. These justices appear poised to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which gave women a constitutional right to abortion.

Through it all, Orrin Hatch, who died April 23 at age 88, often touted his membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and championed the cause of religious liberty.

In fact, historian Benjamin Park says in a recent Washington Post piece, Hatch helped transform the nations Latter-day Saints into one of the most reliably red voting blocs.

On this weeks show, Park discusses the late senator, his influence, his politics, his piety and his place in history.

Listen here:

[Get more content like this in The Salt Lake Tribunes Mormon Land newsletter, a weekly highlight reel of developments in and about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To receive the free newsletter in your inbox, subscribe here. You also can support us with a donation at Patreon.com/mormonland, where you can access transcripts of our Mormon Land podcasts.]

Read the rest here:

'Mormon Land': How Orrin Hatch transformed the political loyalties of Latter-day Saints - Salt Lake Tribune

Barrage of opposition research sees Del Duca turf candidates, Ford stick by Lecce. Del Duca finds a big old target on his back. Is this thing really about affordability or nah?

Alex Boutilier: Welcome to Global News Ontario Votes Roundup, your increasingly desperate-for-news recap of the week that was in Ontarios 43rd general election.

Each week Globals Queens Park Bureau Chief Colin DMello and I attempt to make sense of the politics, policy and polling as Ontarians prepare to make their choice at the ballot box on June 2.

This was a busy week Steven Del Duca released the Liberal platform on Monday, we had the Northern Debate on Tuesday, and a barrage of opposition research was released to try and destabilize the campaigns. And Doug Ford facing renewed criticism of dodging scrutiny by dodging reporters after the debate held not one, but two media avails!

Story continues below advertisement

Colin, weve got a lot to get to, so lets get your impressions off the top. What mattered on the campaign trail this week?

Colin DMello: After a sleepy start to the campaign last week, the parties began deploying their opposition research this week in an attempt to snipe off as many candidates before the nomination deadline.

The Ontario Liberals ended up being the big losers of the week, having to turf three candidates in total which means they wont be able to run a full slate of 124 candidates and are facing questions about their verification process.

What I found to be interesting is how each parties treated allegations around candidates.

Doug Ford, for example, very swiftly stamped out the story about Stephen Lecces participation in a slave auction as a university student by reinforcing Lecces apology, excusing his actions because Lecce was a teenager at the time, and declaring his support for Lecce. Ford was able to deny the story any more oxygen and as a result didnt have to answer for it the very next day effective strategy.

Del Duca, on the other hand, immediately vowed to boot out candidates for offenses of the past when reporters presented him with allegations and in doing so gave the opposition parties a chance to systematically target even more candidates hoping to create some chaos for the Liberal camp.

Story continues below advertisement

As for the Northern Debate, what stood out was who the prime target was. Going into the debate most would reasonably expect the incumbent would be broadsided with barbs from the other leaders, but Doug Ford seemed to play second fiddle to Steven Del Duca.

Del Duca found himself fending off the majority of the attacks, as the other leaders attempted to hold him accountable for 15 years of Liberal rule in Ontario even though Del Duca was only present for seven of those years and was a cabinet minister for four. It could be an indication that the parties sense a Liberal resurgence in the province.

Alex Boutilier: Im really not getting the sense, either from what public polling is available or just from watching the race, that anything is really breaking through. I mean, Im actually literally paid to pay attention to this, and Im still having a hard time understanding what this election is actually about.

People keep screaming its about affordability! at me, and with inflation, housing and gestures vaguely at everything I guess that makes sense. But I remember people screaming that during the federal election campaigns of 2019 and 2021, and Im not sure thats what really decided those races.

Lets pretend that the screaming people are right, though. If this is about affordability, who has the edge right now? Del Duca and his Buck a Bus transit plan? Horwath with her commitments on health care? Doug on being the guy who sent me several hundred dollars in license plate sticker rebates before the campaign?

Trending Stories

Story continues below advertisement

Colin DMello: Alex, we know your life has become more expensive, your grocery bills have gone up, your mortgage is expensive, the price of gasoline has gone up. Thats why [INSERT PARTY LEADER NAME HERE] is the only leader who can make your life more affordable.

Sound familiar? Thats because all the parties are saying the exact same thing on a macro scale, the only difference being the paths to affordability. So to answer the question of who has the edge more directly: all of the above and none of the above. None of the parties has been able to, to date, present themselves as the singular answer to the affordability question with much effect. But theyll keep trying.

Alex Boutilier: Well, to paraphrase Arrested Development, theres always money in the local riding associations

Right, well, were only a week and a half in, and yet theres less than three weeks to go before E-Day. Next week is a big one, though, with a debate scheduled for Monday night.

Will Horwath rally the provinces progressives to her banner? Will Del Duca once again be everybodys favourite target? Will Doug Ford upgrade his media dodging skills and bring a smoke bomb to escape questioning?

Story continues below advertisement

Tune in on Monday to find out. To be extra prepared, catch up on some of this weeks coverage that you might have missed.

Globals Coverage of the 2022 Ontario Election, Week Two:

Check out Global News promise tracker, keeping tabs on every pledge and policy announced during the campaign.

Liberals drop candidate hours before Elections Ontario deadlineThe Ontario Liberals dropped a third candidate in as many days Thursday after the NDP unearthed Facebook comments he allegedly made that used a slur for gay people. (Nicole Thompson/The Canadian Press)

Ford says Lecce has his full support after slave auction report, subsequent apologyOntario Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford says Stephen Lecce has his full support after he apologized in the wake of a report about a slave auction event that happened when Lecce was part of a fraternity at Western University in the 2000s. (Ryan Rocca/Global News)

Doug Ford promises to tighten election financing laws after MPP allowance controversyOntario Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford is promising to tighten up election financing rules after a Global News investigation revealed eight PC MPPs were given allowances from their local riding associations paid for by party donors and taxpayers. (Colin DMello/Global News)

The road to Queens Park: parties divided on highways, united on transitOntarios political parties have identified the transport promises they hope will propel them into government at Queens Park after the provincial election on June 2.

Ontario NDP promise to ban MPP allowances from party donorsOntarios NDP is promising to ban the practice of MPPs dipping into riding association funds to pay for expenses, in the wake of a Global News investigation into how donations to the Ontario PC party are being used.

Story continues below advertisement

Doug Ford pledges to continue Highway 7 expansion between Kitchener and Guelph if re-electedOntario PC Party Leader Doug Ford, who made appearances in Kitchener and Cambridge on Thursday, is pledging to continue construction on the expansion of Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph.

2022 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Read the original:

Ontario Votes Roundup: The gloves are off, but did anyone land a punch? - Global News

The claim

Coalition MPs in normally safe, inner city seats have been under threat this election from independent challengers, with climate change a key line of attack.

One of these MPs is Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. When asked on ABC TV's Insidersabout why the government wouldn't be changing its 2030 emissions targets from those set under former prime minister Tony Abbott in 2015, Mr Frydenberg said Australia needed to "do our part".

"We have now reduced our emissions by 20 per cent," he toldhost David Speers on Sunday, May 15.

"In comparison, Canada has seen emissions down by just 1 per cent, New Zealand by just 4 per cent,the OECD average just 7 per cent," he said.

Is he correct? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.

Mr Frydenberg's claim is misleading.

The first reasonis that the figures the Treasurer has quoted are from different years.Australia is sourced to 2020, New Zealand and Canada to 2019 and the OECD to 2018.

This inconsistency is particularly problematic as emissionsfigures to 2020 include large reductions as a result of the pandemic, and not government policy, while prior years do not.

Figures for 2020 are available for New Zealand, Canada and 32 of 38 OECD countries.

In line with Mr Frydenberg's claim, Australia's emissions in 2020 were 19.9 per cent lower than in 2005 whenincluding emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry.

While New Zealand's 2020 corresponding reductionof3.1per cent is close to the 2019 figure of 4 per cent used by Mr Frydenberg, the same cannot be said of the others.

Canada's emissions includingland use, land-use change and forestry were 9.7 per cent lower in 2020 than 2005, which is almost 10 times greater than the 2019 figure quoted by Mr Frydenberg.

The corresponding reduction for the 32 OECD countries which have reported figures for 2020 is afall of 20.9 per cent on 2005 levels including land use, land-use change and forestry.

Though this figure doesn't include six OECD countries, it is clear that Australia's reduction is not roughly three times the OECD average.

A further problem is that Mr Frydenberg chose two measures that show Australia's record in a favourable light: astarting year of 2005; and the inclusion ofland use, land-use change and forestry.

If the starting year is changed to 1990, when the United Nation's data begins, and if emissions fromland use, land-use change and forestry areexcluded, which experts have previously told Fact Check enables a fairer comparison between countries, the relative positions look very different.

On this basis, Australia has increased its emissions by 19.9 per cent, on par with New Zealand but underperforming Canada's 13.1 per cent increase and a far cry from the 32 OECD countries on a reduction of 12.9 per cent.

This is not the first time Mr Frydenberg has made this claim.

On April 23, the Treasurer toldABC News Weekend Breakfast: "We've seen our emissions down by 20 per cent on 2005 levels already, which compares to New Zealand at around 4 per cent, Canada at 1 per cent and the OECD average at 7 per cent."

Loading

Shortly after that interview,Fact Check contacted his office to ask for the source of his claim, but received no response on the record.

The Coalition has repeatedly made similar claims before the election campaign.

A Facebook postfrom the Liberal Party in November 2021 claimed a reduction of 20 per cent for Australia, 4 per cent for New Zealand, 1 per cent for Canada and 7 per cent for the OECD on 2005 levels. These figures accord with the figures cited in Mr Frydenberg's claim

Loading

However, buried in the fine print is the admission that the figures for these countries are from completely different sources with completely different finishingyears.

Australia is sourced fromthe government's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory with a finishing year of 2020.

Meanwhile, Canada and New Zealand's data is sourced to 2019, and comes from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Finally, the OECDaverage is sourced fromthe World Resources Institute to 2018, which Fact Check has used as a source in a previous analysis.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development is comprised of 38countries andis often used as a proxy for developed nations.

Fact Check hasfound two previous, similar,claims made by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on this subject to be misleading.

Most problematic in these claims was that there was no data available for 2020 for thecountries the Prime Minister was comparing with Australia.

This, experts told Fact Check, was not a fair comparison, and awarded a large, pandemic-related reduction in emissions to Australia without taking that into account for other countries.

Furthermore, experts said large falls in emissions between 2019 and 2020 did not have anything to do with government policy.

Once again, Fact Check considers that to make a fair comparison, the same starting and finishing years must be used.

Keeping that in mind, it's important to mention that in the dataset used by the Liberal Party for the OECD, Australia actually increased emissions to 2018 by 3.4 per cent on 2005 levels including land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).

This puts Australia behind the OECD average a reductionof 6.6per cent, which Fact Check has calculated using the data and roughly accords with the Liberal Party's figure.

The UNFCCC dataused by the Liberal Party for New Zealand and Canada, for the period from2005 to 2019 including land use, land-use change and forestry, shows Australia reduced emissions by 15.2per cent still ahead of New Zealand and Canada but by a smaller margin.

As Fact Check has previously noted, Annex I signatories to the UNFCCC report their data on an annual basis to the convention's secretariatwith a two-year lag. Data for 2019, for example, was reported by these countries in 2021.

Annex I countries arecomprisedof members of the OECD in 1992 "plus countries with economies in transition (the EIT Parties), includingRussia, the Baltic States, and several Central and Eastern European States".

Since Fact Check tested Mr Morrison's lastclaim, all but two Annex I countries Australia and Ukraine have submitted their figures for 2020 to the UNFCCC.

This means that all but six OECD countries, whichare not Annex I signatories Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Israel, Mexico and South Korea have data available for 2020. Annex I countries whichare OECD members other than Australia havesubmitted this data in the secretariat's Common Reporting Format (CRF) tables.

Fact Check has sourced emissions data from these CRF tables for 31 Annex I countries whichare OECD members.

For Australia, Fact Check has used the latest available calendar year figures from the government's NGGI.

On this measure, Australiawith a reduction of 19.9 per cent is below the OECD countries whichare Annex I signatories on 20.9 per cent. Fact Check's calculation of the OECD includes figures for Australia.

Australia is still in front of Canada, with a reduction of 9.7 per cent, but this figure is a far cry from the 1 per cent quoted by Mr Frydenberg.

New Zealand recorded a reduction of 3.1 per cent, which is much closer to the 4 per cent figure quoted by Mr Frydenberg.

However, as Fact Check has previously explained, the inclusion of LULUCF is often controversial in carbon accounting.

The UNFCCCrecogniseshuman activity through land use, land-use change and forestry as a carbon "sink", which can remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Planting trees throughafforestation or reforestation, for example, stores carbon, removing it from the air.

Australia'sGreenhouse Gas Inventoryincludes LULUCF.

But experts previously told Fact Check that there are sometimes issues with the accuracy of measurements, and not all countries have significant LULUCF inventories, which means international comparisons are not always fair.

Furthermore, they said that the inclusion of the category advantages Australia in international comparisons.

Excluding LULUCF in this dataset changes the picture: Australia is ranked behind New Zealand, Canada and the OECD average on this measure.

In fact, there are only two OECD countries whichare Annex I signatories below Australia Iceland and Turkey.

Mr Frydenberg referenced 2005 as his starting year in making his claim.

Experts previously told Fact Check that 1990, the year in which the UNFCCC data begins, is the best year to use as it is the year most countries began their emissions accounts, while acknowledging that all choices of starting years advantage different countries in different ways.

Australia's reductionsincluding LULUCF were similar using1990 and 2005 as the base year, but for some other countries there were large variations.

Including LULUCF, Australia with a reduction of 19.9 per cent on 1990 levels is above the OECD (a reduction of 14.5 per cent).

It is also above Canada and New Zealand whichrecorded increases of 25.3 per cent and 26.2 per cent respectively.

While Australia is above these countries and the OECD, its rank amongst OECD Annex 1 countries, at number 19, does not change whether the starting year is 1990 or 2005.

Excluding LULUCF, Australia recorded an increase of 19.9 per cent on 1990 levels, putting it just above New Zealand with an increase of 20.8 per cent, but below Canada with an increase of 13.1 per cent and the OECDwith a reduction of 12.9per cent.

Complete data for 2020 is not available for the six OECD countries which are not Annex I signatories.

However, the Global Carbon Project, an international research project with a goal to "develop a complete picture of the global carbon cycle",holds data for carbon dioxide emissions for these countries.

Emissions of carbon dioxide make up around three quartersof world emissions, with the rest comprisedof methane, nitrous oxide and smaller trace gases.

This data shows that each of these countries recorded falls in carbon dioxide emissions excluding LULUCF between 2019 and 2020.

In fact, the group of non-Annex I OECD countries recorded a larger dropin carbon dioxide emissions in proportional terms than their Annex I counterparts.

While these figures cannot be extrapolated to total greenhouse gas emissions reductions for 2020, they do demonstrate the impact of the first year of the pandemic on emissions in these countries.

The OECD also holdsemissions data on member countries, with the data ending in 2019.

The organisation sources its data to the UNFCCC as well as well as replies to the organisation's State of the Environment report.

For non-Annex I countries, there is no country-level data for 2019. However, the OECD does provide an estimate of total emissions for member countries, excluding Israel.

It's important to note here that the data held for Annex I countries aligns with submissions these countries made to the UNFCCC in 2021.

Countries update their estimates for previous years every year, so the data may not align with the data sourced from countries' CRF tables above and is slightly out of date.

Nonetheless, it's the most complete and up-to-date estimate of OECD emissions that Fact Check was able to find.

Fact Check has used this estimate to calculate emissions reductions for the OECD. Reductions forCanada, New Zealand and Australia are also calculated from this data in the graph below.

On 2005 levels including LULUCF, the data shows a reduction to 2019 of 15.2 per cent for Australia, 10.6 per cent for the OECD, 4 per cent for New Zealand and 0.9 per cent for Canada. Notably, that puts Australia much closer to the OECDthan Mr Frydenberg's claim.

The margin between Australiaand those Mr Frydenberg compares it to is much smaller in this dataset.

Fact Check has made the same calculations using the OECD data but excluding LULUCF.

On this measure Australia increased emissions to 2019 by 4 per cent. The OECD decreased emissions by 9.6 per cent, while Canada and New Zealand both recorded small decreases.

Changing the starting years in this dataset does little to change these positions on either measure.

On 1990 levels, Australia is in front of New Zealand, Canada and the OECD when LULUCF is included.

But excluding LULUCF, Australia falls behind once again.

A comparison of emissions records can also vary significantly according to finishing year and the dataset used.

As mentioned above, the 2018 dataset chosen by the Liberal Party to cast the OECD in a less favourable light does little to boost Australia's position when measured consistently.

Australia was one of 16 OECD countries whose emissions including LULUCF actually increased between 2005 and 2018.

Australia ranksnot only behind the OECD but also well behind Canada with a reduction of 24.2 per cent.

Australia is still in front of New Zealand in this dataset, which increased emissions by 15.6per cent.

Principal researcher: Elections editor Matt Martino

Here is the original post:

Josh Frydenberg says Australia has achieved a greater reduction in emissions than New Zealand, Canada and the OECD. Is that correct? - ABC News

And thats all from Scott Morrison on A Current Affair - and from the blog. Well be back tomorrow with more breaking news, COVID-19 updates and reporting from the federal election campaign.

Some of the highlights:

- The Prime Minister says he could have been more sensitive to voters as he defended his track record during the pandemic, saying Australia had weathered COVID-19 better than nearly any other country in the world.

- The topic of costings was high on both the Coalition and Labors campaign agendas today, with the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg releasing the Coalitions costings, which includes a 2 per cent increase to the public sector efficiency dividend to save $3.3 billion dollars.

- Shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers has confirmed Labor will unveil bigger debt and deficits before the election, saying a a couple of billion dollars a year is no big deal, and it is time to flick the switch to quality.

-Opposition leader Anthony, meanwhile, said the Labor partys costings would be unveiled on Thursday after declining to provide a specific timeframe yesterday.

- Albanese also said he would like his legacy to be acting on climate, regardless of the election result on Saturday. He also acknowledged his gaffes during the campaign, saying he is human and had an issue with memory recall.

- The latest early voting numbers came in today, indicating 3.75 million Australians have already cast a ballot. The Australian Electoral Commission said 2.6 million voters have prepolled and 1.15 million submitted a postal vote.

- Former Liberal mainstays went on the campaign trail today to convince voters to cast their ballot for a Morrison government. Addressing voter discontent with the Coalition, former prime minister John Howard said people inevitably tire of governments that have been in power for a while but that it should not influence Liberal voters into casting their ballots for independents instead.

Former foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop said teal independent candidates being elected into parliament would eat the heart out of the Liberal Party and threaten its broad electoral appeal in the future.

Read the rest here:

Election 2022: Prime Minister Scott Morrison admits he could have been 'more sensitive' to voters - The Australian Financial Review

news, national,

Australians are poised to hit the polls at the weekend with increasing concern the nation may wake up on Sunday to its second hung parliament in just over a decade. So what is a hung parliament, and is it something that should be feared? In order to form a majority in the Lower House - or House of Representatives (the green one) - either the Australian Labor Party (ALP) or the Liberal Nationals Party need to have won a majority of the available 151 seats. That means, that either party needs to claim a minimum of 76 seats to form a government. If neither party secures this majority, then neither can form a government. In this case, the two-party leaders will appeal to Independent crossbenchers for their support. "When that occurs, the major parties will have to negotiate with the crossbench and try and get them to agree to support them and form a government," said Dr Jacob Deem from the University of Central Queensland. "What they're aiming to do is to convince enough members of the crossbench to support them in confidence motions and in supply. So passing a budget. Those are the two things that any government has to be able to do." Either leader must convince the Governor-General that they have the 'confidence of the house' in order to be sworn in as prime minister. When the two leaders call on the support of the crossbenchers, they need to ensure that the crossbenchers will not support any no-confidence votes, which could derail the sitting government. They also need to ensure that the crossbenchers do not support votes that would stop the supply of ordinary government business - which includes the paying of public servants and social security bills, and the passing of the annual budget. "And so they'll be looking to get agreement from enough minor party or independent members to support them on those particular motions," Dr Deem said. "To do that, the crossbench will have their own list of demands or things that they would like to achieve, and like any negotiation, it'll be a question of how far each party is willing to go to compromise and meet those demands." That depends on how quickly the leaders can garner the official support of the crossbenchers and it depends on how many crossbenchers are needed to sway a majority. The last hung parliament in Australia occurred in 2010 when both Labor's Julia Gillard and Liberal's Tony Abbott managed to land just 72 seats each. The power was then in the hands of six crossbenchers who took 17 days to deliberate on which side of parliament they would lend their support. In the end, Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott, and Tony Windsor voted for Julia Gillard to return as prime minister, which was enough for the Labor leader to be sworn in again as prime minister. "It's not quick," Dr Deem said. "It depends on how big the crossbench is. If the major parties only need to convince one or two crossbenchers, it can be a few days. "But if there's a big crossbench as we might see in this election, then it might really drag out as those last few independent members take their time to consider all their options and see who's willing to meet their demands and give them what they're looking to achieve in For those 17 days in waiting back in 2010, Julia Gillard was installed as a caretaker prime minister to maintain some governance in the interim. Before 2010, a hung parliament had not happened in Australia in more than 70 years. In fact, the last one before 2010 was back in World War II. So hung parliaments are not at all common in Australia. That really depends on your perspective. It could mean more accountability for the sitting government, but it also could mean more difficulty in passing legislation. "Potentially, the government of the day is held to ransom by a few independents or a few people representing only a tiny portion of the population," Dr Deem said. "On the other hand, it ensures that the government doesn't get to just do whatever it wants. There's extra review, there are extra considerations that they have to take into account before they try and do anything." Despite her minority government, from 2010 to 2013, Labor's Julia Gillard managed to pass more legislation than term of government. "Julia Gillard herself was a very good negotiator," Dr Deem said. "So the minority government definitely made things harder for her, but she was able to overcome those challenges." Though that too became its own double-edged sword, since some of the legislation the Gillard Government pushed through ended up losing the election for Labor in 2013. "The really tricky thing for Julia Gillard was that in order to get the full support of the crossbench, she had to concede to the Greens that they wanted to put a price on carbon which became referred to as the 'carbon tax' and that ultimately was very unpopular and brought down that government," Dr Deem said. "So these negotiations, these compromises to the crossbench can be quite a long run for the party seeking to form a government."

/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/Emma.Horn/279fb537-f6bf-4c06-85c2-6a54a9065f47.jpg/r5_0_1915_1079_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

WATCH

May 17 2022 - 7:00AM

So what is a hung parliament, and is it something that should be feared?

What is a hung parliament?

In order to form a majority in the Lower House - or House of Representatives (the green one) - either the Australian Labor Party (ALP) or the Liberal Nationals Party need to have won a majority of the available 151 seats.

That means, that either party needs to claim a minimum of 76 seats to form a government.

If neither party secures this majority, then neither can form a government. In this case, the two-party leaders will appeal to Independent crossbenchers for their support.

"When that occurs, the major parties will have to negotiate with the crossbench and try and get them to agree to support them and form a government," said Dr Jacob Deem from the University of Central Queensland.

"What they're aiming to do is to convince enough members of the crossbench to support them in confidence motions and in supply. So passing a budget. Those are the two things that any government has to be able to do."

Either leader must convince the Governor-General that they have the 'confidence of the house' in order to be sworn in as prime minister.

HUNG UP: If neither party obtains a majority of the 151 seats in the House of Representatives, it results in a hung parliament.

What's in it for the independents?

They also need to ensure that the crossbenchers do not support votes that would stop the supply of ordinary government business - which includes the paying of public servants and social security bills, and the passing of the annual budget.

"And so they'll be looking to get agreement from enough minor party or independent members to support them on those particular motions," Dr Deem said.

"To do that, the crossbench will have their own list of demands or things that they would like to achieve, and like any negotiation, it'll be a question of how far each party is willing to go to compromise and meet those demands."

How long does it take to form a government?

The last hung parliament in Australia occurred in 2010 when both Labor's Julia Gillard and Liberal's Tony Abbott managed to land just 72 seats each.

The power was then in the hands of six crossbenchers who took 17 days to deliberate on which side of parliament they would lend their support.

In the end, Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott, and Tony Windsor voted for Julia Gillard to return as prime minister, which was enough for the Labor leader to be sworn in again as prime minister.

"It's not quick," Dr Deem said.

"It depends on how big the crossbench is. If the major parties only need to convince one or two crossbenchers, it can be a few days.

"But if there's a big crossbench as we might see in this election, then it might really drag out as those last few independent members take their time to consider all their options and see who's willing to meet their demands and give them what they're looking to achieve in

For those 17 days in waiting back in 2010, Julia Gillard was installed as a caretaker prime minister to maintain some governance in the interim.

Before 2010, a hung parliament had not happened in Australia in more than 70 years. In fact, the last one before 2010 was back in World War II. So hung parliaments are not at all common in Australia.

Is a hung parliament a bad thing?

That really depends on your perspective. It could mean more accountability for the sitting government, but it also could mean more difficulty in passing legislation.

"Potentially, the government of the day is held to ransom by a few independents or a few people representing only a tiny portion of the population," Dr Deem said.

"On the other hand, it ensures that the government doesn't get to just do whatever it wants. There's extra review, there are extra considerations that they have to take into account before they try and do anything."

Despite her minority government, from 2010 to 2013, Labor's Julia Gillard managed to pass more legislation than term of government.

"Julia Gillard herself was a very good negotiator," Dr Deem said.

"So the minority government definitely made things harder for her, but she was able to overcome those challenges."

Though that too became its own double-edged sword, since some of the legislation the Gillard Government pushed through ended up losing the election for Labor in 2013.

"The really tricky thing for Julia Gillard was that in order to get the full support of the crossbench, she had to concede to the Greens that they wanted to put a price on carbon which became referred to as the 'carbon tax' and that ultimately was very unpopular and brought down that government," Dr Deem said.

"So these negotiations, these compromises to the crossbench can be quite a long run for the party seeking to form a government."

Read the original here:

2022 Federal Election: What is a hung parliament? - Daily Liberal

Where do babies come from? We understand if a number of parents have difficulty answering this question when their kids ask them. That is why we have the education system. But what do you do when educators, academics, intellectuals and media have difficulty answering basic questions? Where does Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb come from? Open the doors of Gyanvapi mosque and let everyone see.

No, you cant look inside Gyanvapi mosque. There is this or that plea pending in the Supreme Court, and various other courts, to stop the videography. Then there is the supposed idea of India, something called places of worship act, this act or that act. If the Church could come back and have that argument with Galileo all over again, they would certainly appreciate our zeal to make facts illegal. You cannot ban history on the basis of ideology.

But we have been trying exactly that. In the seven decades since independence, we have served ourselves with an invented version of history that can only be seen as an insult to the intelligence of the reader. No, the Muslim emperors never destroyed any temples. Except when they did, which could only be for political reasons or economic reasons or military reasons, and never for religious reasons. Even if those emperors gave themselves titles such as destroyer of idols, or killer of infidels, and inscribed these on their swords. They had no clue about what they were doing when they described themselves in their own words. We have to interpret their thoughts for them.

Some of the most obvious lies were indeed taken back, such as the Aryan Invasion Theory. But these were replaced by new, more viciously clever ones. The term migration might sound inoffensive. But that is until you find out that they use it as a catch-all expression that includes everyone who came to India from anywhere for any reason, even Mahmud Ghazni. This is not the only place where they use weasel words. The Qutab Minar and the adjoining mosque were built by using portions of 27 Hindu and Jain temples in the area. Go to Hampi and you will find a plaque that warns you explicitly that some people see the 1565 Battle of Talikota in which the Deccan Sultans destroyed the Vijayanagara Empire as a religious conflict. But it wasnt. It was the result of political changes in the Deccan. Imagine the panic over secularism.

On the other end, in order to make up for these political changes between Hindus and Muslims, they have to invent religious wars between Hindus themselves. Again, the weasel words come in handy. Almost anything could be called a conflict between Vaishnavas and Shaivas. Go to any place of historic significance in India and you will realise that our historians have a real problem saying the word Hindu. It is always either Vaishnava or Shaiva. In the most extreme and now most fashionable version of this lie, Hinduism is a religion that was invented in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in order to oppress the backward castes. Who led this conspiracy? Apparently, it was Mahatma Gandhi. Yes, the academic left is crazy and out of control; and always has been.

How do we know that they are lying to us? For one, there is common sense. And also that sometimes the mask slips, and we catch them in the act. For instance, there is a scholar who tried to include in her official university syllabus that there was some connection between Modi, Hindutva and the rioters at the US Capitol on Jan 6, 2021. She did this based on social media rumours. This incident did not affect her standing one bit in the community of historians. She remains to this day a celebrated scholar on the reign of Aurangazeb. If they could falsify events that happened before our very eyes, imagine what they did with Mughal history, or that of ancient India.

I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves, Michelle Obama famously said at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. It caused an uproar at the time. Could it be that the White House, the US Capitol and other cherished symbols of American democracy have slave labour built into them? Then, the historians intervened and said that the answer was yes. The symbolic significance of an African American president now occupying the most prestigious address in America, a mansion once built by slaves, had to be celebrated.

That is how it is supposed to be, all around the world. History is full of bitter facts, but we do not run away from them. We do not try to suppress them by means of court orders. How would an American like to hear that George Washington was a slave owner? But he was, and in fact, Washington happened to treat his slaves with rather exceptional cruelty, even for his time. And America today is still working through that difficult history. African Americans are being allowed to express their pain and work through it. This is how it is around the world now. They are challenging the Great White Man narrative of history.

In India, we have what should be called the Great Muslim Conqueror version of history. In this narrative, the Hindus are always too passive, squabbling among themselves, and deserving of subjugation, until the great Muslim conqueror comes along, providing unity, strength, greatness and even social justice. Why are the Hindus of India being denied the privilege of re-examining this narrative? Why are we not allowed to talk about the pain caused by centuries of humiliation, the destruction of temples, the humiliation of the jizya tax, and ultimately the forced partition of India?

In India, we have what should be called the Great Muslim Conqueror version of history. In this narrative, the Hindus are always too passive, squabbling among themselves, and deserving of subjugation, until the great Muslim conqueror comes along.

The partition was in many ways like the American Civil War, only a thousand times worse. Nearly three million people perished. And unlike the American Civil War where the slave owners lost, the Indian Islamists succeeded in setting up their own apartheid state. All across America, the success of the American Civil War is celebrated. Statues of Confederate generals, who fought on the side of slave owners, are being torn down even today. In India, we cannot even remove a portrait of Jinnah from Aligarh Muslim University, for the sake of sentiments. Whose sentiments? Remember the outcry last year when the Modi government tried to declare August 14 as a day of remembrance for the horrors of partition. Let alone re-examine, we are not even allowed to remember history.

Remember the outcry last year when the Modi government tried to declare August 14 as a day of remembrance for the horrors of partition. Let alone re-examine, we are not even allowed to remember history.

I must have been in the fourth or fifth grade when I heard about Savarkar. The mention of his name was accompanied by the information that he wrote mercy petitions to the British government. This is not surprising. In our public discourse, the name Savarkar has become inextricably linked with mercy petition. It is repeated ad nauseum by the media, historians and politicians.

But it was only a few years ago that I learned about how Nehru signed a bond in 1923 to get himself out of Nabha jail in Punjab. This was after his father tapped his connections with the Viceroy who got in touch with the local king of Nabha. Nehru promised never to return to the princely state, and he was freed. He had spent just under two weeks in jail in what he said were harsh conditions. One cannot but wonder how Nehru would have fared in an infamous prison such as Andaman Cellular Jail. And how come the British never sent the great freedom fighter to Kalapani?

But most of all, one would wonder why this embarrassing episode in the life of Indias first Prime Minister is so little known. The answer is simple. Those in charge of our history were fond of Nehru (or like the Communists, were beholden to him) but despised Savarkar. History has always been political. It has always been about how the present looks at the past. And when people change their minds, the way they look at the past also changes.

History has always been political. It has always been about how the present looks at the past. And when people change their minds, the way they look at the past also changes.

Dont rewrite history, has been the rallying cry of liberals ever since India made a choice in the 2014 General Election. This suits them very well because they wrote the existing version of it. Facts always remain facts. But which facts make it to public knowledge always depends on who is writing history. For instance, they always tell you that Golwalkar praised Hitler in the 1930s. They never tell you that the Soviet Union was a military ally of Nazi Germany for the first two years of the Second World War. Did they tell you that the Catholic Church was a supporter of Mussolini? Or that the Catholic Church helped Nazis escape from Germany after the war was over? This included the most infamous Nazis such as Adolf Eichmann, one of the main organizers of the holocaust.

Or would they tell you that the New York Times, the great fountainhead of liberalism, was at the forefront of covering up the holocaust? Yes, the Berlin correspondent of the New York Times in the 1930s was a Nazi sympathiser named Guido Enderis. This uncomfortable fact does not seem to come up very much, whether in India or abroad. So while the military allies of Hitler (the Communists), his political allies (the Catholic Church) and his media allies (the New York Times) got their records wiped clean, the so-called Hindutva forces are left carrying the blame for Nazism!

One of the most interesting examples of this came up a few years ago when Indians on social media began objecting to the use of the term swastika for the hated Nazi emblem. It turns out that Hitler had never used the term himself. But when it was time to translate the original German term hakenkreuz, the historians decided that simply calling it a hooked cross in English would be too difficult for people around the world to understand. So they decided to use swastika instead. Who says Sanskrit is a dead language?

Nazism owes nothing to any part of the Western tradition, be it German or not, Catholic or Protestant, Christian, Greek or Roman, wrote Hannah Arendt, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century and an icon of the left. So the West has wiped its own slate clean when it comes to the origins of Nazism. However, you can find Hannah Arendts famous work The Banality of Evil quoted by numerous mainstream left-wing outlets to suggest comparisons between Modis India and Hitlers Germany. And we are supposed to trust these people to give a fair account of Indian history.

In the US, the New York Times is currently leading a high prestige effort known as the 1619 Project. Why the year 1619? Because it was in 1620 that the pilgrims from the Mayflower landed at Plymouth rock and set up their colony in Massachusetts. This is the origin myth of the United States as taught to millions of American schoolchildren. An all-white group of audacious sea-farers from England, who make a voyage across the ocean to begin a new life in a land where they will have liberty, justice and freedom.

The New York Times wants to challenge this narrative. In their view, the real history of the United States should begin in 1619, when the first African slaves were brought to work in the colony of Virginia. The outcome of this research project is to prepare a blueprint for schools across the country. Thus, the new history of the United States will put racial injustice at the center of everything.

What if we Hindus asked for something similar? What if we wanted atrocities committed by Muslim empires to be placed at the core of modern Indian history? That would make us communal and fascist. But why?

You cannot miss the obvious here. The common thread between the New York Times, the Obamas and everyone else around the world who has a license to revisit history is that of liberal privilege. There are groups of young radicals all across North America (and in Britain) right now who are bringing down statues of colonists, confederate generals, or anyone they see as an imperialist. Would similar actions by Hindus be acceptable? We know that Christopher Columbus set sail in 1492. What if Indian Hindus wanted to demolish something built by an oppressor say from 1526? Would they be okay with it?

We know the answer is no. Does anyone remember the outcry when a statue of Lenin was destroyed in Agartala after the BJP won the 2018 election in Tripura? The two-tier system when it comes to dealing with history and historical figures is clear. Those with liberal privilege can do anything. For everyone else, there is the idea of India.

The Hindu-Muslim binary in India cannot just be looked at in isolation. There is a larger story of injustice here, which has been unfolding across the world for millennia. It is the suppression of indigenous, so-called pagan faiths, by Abrahamic religions such as Christianity or Islam. The Hindu religion is one among numerous faith traditions that used to be common across the ancient world, from the ancient Egyptians, to the Greeks, the Romans, even the Aztecs of Central America and the aboriginal people of Australia. The Hindus worship forces of nature, the masculine and the feminine, the seasons and trees and rivers that give life to this land. But one by one, these cultures fell, and were wiped out by the onslaught of Christianity or Islam.

This is a rebirth. Around the world, the remnants of indigenous faiths have been standing up to reclaim their place in history. In Canada, in the United States, in Australia, they are looking for the graves of children stolen by the church and held for conversion to Christianity. The skeletons are tumbling out of the closet, almost literally. From national monuments to workplaces in modern cities, they are acknowledging how the land of the ancient nations was annexed, and the people subjugated. This applies even to Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, where the faces of Americas greatest presidents are carved in solid rock on the mountainside.

The conversion of people from indigenous faiths to Abrahamic religions, whether by direct or indirect means, has always been a form of imperialism. But for some reason, the Hindus of India are expected not to know and never to talk about the symbols of subjugation built upon their land. They are not even allowed to set their eyes upon them, not see what is inside, let alone document or make videos of anything.

For all the ways in which Hindus are insulted and mocked for asking questions, there is one last arrow in the quiver. Believe what the liberals tell you, or you must be from Whatsapp University. Yes, we are, so what?

In fact, the so-called Whatsapp University is like a black market for information. It exists because we know that the official channels are heavily censored by the liberal elite. You would have never told me about Nehru signing that bond to get out of Nabha jail. so I picked it up on the black market. Show me what exactly I did wrong.

Much like your heavily censored official channels, the black market sometimes gets things wrong. For instance, I have a feeling that the search for a Hindu temple inside the Taj Mahal is likely misguided. But thats okay. Remember the prestigious 1619 project by the New York Times? They got a whole lot wrong as well, such as saying that the American revolution was a war to protect slavery. They corrected it and picked themselves up. So stop dismissing everything you dont like as Whatsapp University and let the Great Muslim Conqueror theory of Indian history be challenged in the mainstream. The exaggerations and half-truths found on social media will die a natural death.

Heres to history! It will remain alive only when we are allowed to constantly re-examine everything. Keep asking questions.

Abhishek Banerjee is an author and columnist. He tweets @AbhishBanerj. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the stand of this publication.

Read all the Latest News , Breaking News and IPL 2022 Live Updates here.

Read more from the original source:

Why Indians Should Be Allowed to Question the 'Great Muslim Conqueror' Theory of History - News18

As Ramadan, Passover and Easter coincided and violent clashes broke out in Jerusalems Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa compound, the only surprise was that they didnt spark a full-scale war.

The growing presence of Jews visiting the compound drew Palestinian protests, the police crackdown fed Palestinian fears of an Israeli "plot" to take over al Aqsa; and the Islamist Hamas leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, issued a call for attacks on Israelis and a potential religious war. Late on Independence Day, two Palestinian attackers took him at his word, killing three ultra-Orthodox Israelis in the city of Elad.

After decades of scrutinizing how the people of this region think, its easy to conclude that religious fervor towers over claims to land, power, resources, nation and narrative, in its raw capacity to escalate conflict and block peace.

>>Qatar Is Hamas' Patron. Its 'Moderate' Rebranding Is a Dangerous Delusion|For Israeli and Palestinian Extremists, Jerusalem's Holiest Site Is Just an Excuse

In the Israeli-Palestinian context, religious movements are prime actors stoking and sparking escalation: From Hamas or Islamic Jihad rockets fired into Israel, to radical Jewish settler attacks on Palestinians and relentless settlement expansion over decades.

But precisely because of their centrality to society and politics on both sides, there can be no peace without at least the partial acquiescence of religious communities. Why is religion such a force for incitement and violence? Even when religious communities are not actively violent, does their religious identity inevitably dictate hardline, militant political attitudes? Is there any way out of the religion-hardliner deadlock?

A key reason for religions toxic impact is that many believers narratives are tribal and exclusive we alone are the chosen group, and our claims alone are correct. Most importantly, the divine religious mission is often framed as a matter of life or death.

On the Israeli Jewish religious right, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda HaCohen Kook, among the most influential figures of the religious settlement movement from 1967 to today, sanctified the notion of "giving ones life for the land," explains Ofer Zalzberg of the Herbert Kelman Institute, something Israels current prime minister Naftali Bennett has advocated himself in the past.

Some take the concept literally: After a Palestinian attacker killed yeshiva student Yehuda Dimentman near a West Bank settlement, one of his angry peers at the former settlement of Homesh told me: "The most moral response in the world [to the murder] is for Jews to settle the land of Israel. Anyone who doesnt realize that has a disease."

Palestinian religious extremist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad support killing and attacking civilians, and themselves too, if needed. The original 1988 Hamas charter explains the groups aspirations: "Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes." Palestinian Islamic Jihad likewise sanctifies both the land of Palestine and the use of violence against Israelis; it "pioneered" the use of suicide attacks against Israelis.

Notably, for both sides, the cause is so holy, it even justifies violating each religions own principles: Jewish women settlers violate taboos on touching men in tussles with soldiers; the Quran forbids suicide.

Beyond activists and extremists, surveys find definitively that the unwavering connection between religious devotion and everyday hardline attitudes holds for the general public as well.

Among Jewish Israelis, the direct correlation between levels of religious observance and political self-definition is stark and unyielding in all polling, over decades. In a poll for Btselem in 2021, 88 percent of Orthodox (or "national religious") Jews reported that they were right-wing, compared to only 38 percent of secular Jews.

The right-left axis in Israel represents first and foremost the conflict. In a joint Israeli-Palestinian survey from 2020, 70 percent of Orthodox Jews opposed the general notion of a two state solution; two-thirds of secular Jews supported it.

Palestinians show similar trends, though the gaps are not as large and occasionally inconsistent. In that 2020 joint survey, 39 percent of religious Palestinians supported the two-state solution compared to 53 percent of the non-religious. Over 40 percent of religious Palestinians supported armed struggle against Israel, ten points more than others. Over 40 percent of religious respondents intended to vote for Hamas, but just 18 percent of "somewhat" religious respondents.

Among Palestinians, about half the population considers itself "religious" (compared to "somewhat" or "not" religious); among Jews the Orthodox and national religious are fewer, close to one-quarter. But self-defined "traditionalists" are also heavily right-wing, adding up to more than half of Jews in total whose political attitudes are highly correlated with religion.

These trends are real; and often the liberal response is to write religious people off as fundamentalist peace spoilers; the more of them, the darker the future.

The moderate voices

Yet the varieties of religious interpretation and the diverse roles religion can play in society in practice, erode the simple picture that devotion inevitably or exclusively exacerbates conflict.

Even the interaction of politics and religion does not always drive extremism. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the towering charismatic founder of Israels Mizrahi ultra-Orthodox party Shas, held that Jewish law permitted Israels withdrawal from Sinai in his early years. Yosef sought to distinguish his community from the more hawkish Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox political positions. Shas avoided opposing the Oslo Accords, prioritizing a Jewish majority within Israel rather than extended territorial sovereignty; and in the late 1990s, the partys fortunes soared. Shas later drifted far to the right; interestingly, its vote share also sank compared to its peak.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, another leading religious Jewish figure, Rabbi Yehuda Amital, helped establish the "Jewish state and democratic state" movement, later a political party (Meimad) committed to moderate views on the conflict and partnership with the peace camp.

Amital served in Peres government after Rabins assassination and Meimad partnered with Labor in the 1999 elections. Meimad disappeared as a political party, but, says Zalzberg, Amitals moderate spirit has grassroots influence, as one of the leaders of the Har Etzion yeshiva for over 30 years, with its thousands of graduates.

Similarly, Israelis are learning that the term "Muslim Brotherhood" can no longer be reflexively associated with violent Islamist extremism. Hamas is one offshoot, but historically, the Islamic Movement in Israel is another. The movements party offshoot Raam sits in Israels governing coalition; party leader Mansour Abbas broke a colossal psychological and political barrier to help form the current government, and became the new face of moderate Islamism for Israeli Jews.

Abbas is steely despite daily abuse from Netanyahus henchmen in the opposition. Against intense pressure from his base due to the recent violence at al-Aqsa, he carefully "suspended" his participation in the coalition, rather than smashing it (yet). He fiercely criticizes Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians, instead calling for "reconciliation and partnership based on the values of religion and belief in God ["Elokim"]."

Finally, before blaming religion or hoping rare moderate religious voices win the day, religion must also be understood as one factor within larger political forces.

"Its not the [religious] text, its the context," Mustafa Abu Sway said in a phone interview, downplaying the impact of sacred texts in favor of political circumstances driving escalation. Abu Sway is scholar of Islam at al Quds University and at the al Aqsa Mosque. For the last decade, he has given sermons at al-Aqsa almost daily and more during Ramadan, adding sermons in English for foreign Muslim visitors.

"What defines the [Muslim Palestinian] reaction is not what we [religious leaders] say," he told me, after visiting those injured in the Al-Aqsa clashes, but what "people see for themselvesa level of brutality that was unprecedented." Religion may exacerbate hardline attitudes, but a robust and effective peace process has been shown clearly to reduce those attitudes in survey research, he noted correctly.

Still, the moderate manifestations hint at openings for prising religion away from militant attitudes. And some are trying.

Cracks in the wall?

Alick Isaacs is a scholar of Jewish and western religious thought; Rabbi Amital was a major influence on him. Together with Professor Avinoam Rosenak and Sharon Leshem Zinger, they co-founded Siah Shalom Talking Peace. He told me the groups motivation was straightforward: "If we dont manage to listen to and engage with constituencies that have opposed the peace proposals in the past, its not possible to achieve peace in the future."

The group facilitates dynamic workshops with religious and secular Israelis and Palestinians, including those whodeeply opposed the peace efforts in the past, meeting both within each society, and between Israelis and Palestinians. The aim is to avoid selling liberal notions of peace to religious people, but to accept their religious perspectives as a starting point, to develop conceptions of peace that can be more commensurate with their religious worldview.

For religious Muslim participants, for example, Isaacs explained, the aim is "not how to find Islamic justifications for a liberal peace model, but what is an Islamic vision of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It turns the question on its head."

To outside observers, such an open-ended people-to-people approach can seem painfully incremental at a time when big-scale political progress and results are so urgently needed. But mapping the obstacles also sheds light on long-term dilemmas that eventually must be confronted.

The clash between liberal peace and religious conservatism is a profound example of such dilemmas. Siah Shalom found that liberal values are integral to both the logic and solutions for a two-state solution and peace a linkage that deters many religious people committed to conservative lives and societies.

Of Haredi participants, Isaacs observes: One of the purposes of their leadership is to resist or slow down changes.

By contrast, when asked how Islam can support peace, Abu Sway answered that the right political agreement is the starting point, rather than religious interpretations: "If [an agreement] supports human rights, historical rights, if its very clear, we see the implementation, I think that should be enough."

Abu Sway considered how religious interpretations of the hudna a long term truce can support peace for an unlimited period of time; the concept has come to stand for an Islamic theological tradition with the intention of ending violence. Abu Sway also supports inter-group encounters, but is wary of regarding them as a panacea. "I love inter-faith dialogue," he says, adding, "but I am aware of its limitations."

Zalzberg concurs that the language and debates about peace grounded in liberal universalist principles, international law, rights and equality may critically conflict with conservative religious reasoning. Shas Rabbi Yosef, says Zalzberg, justified moderate views regarding peace based on the sanctity of Jewish lives, not on universal liberal values. Religious Jews may "worry that one issue [advancing conflict resolution] brings with it a whole package of [liberal] values and they wont be able to pick just one."

There is no simple answer for the clash between liberal universalist notions of rights, and religious prioritization of theological values. But ignoring these constituents is no answer, nor is it realistic to expect them to adopt a liberal worldview wholesale.

After all, neither Palestinian nor Israeli religious hardliners have a monopoly on rigid or sanctified thinking. Israel has its own ritualized and mythologized secular civil religion: At 14:02 this Independence Day, Israels air force flew over Hebron and the hardcore settlement of Kiryat Arba for the first time, in a ritual as nationalist, expansionist and coercive as the religious beliefs secular people regularly blame.

Indeed, there is a strong argument that the direction of causality should be reversed: that the regions most militant religious forces took the political center stage mainly following the 1967 war. In this framing, the occupation and conflict drives religious extremism, rather than the other way around.

Whatever its genesis, religious thinking exacerbates the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but secular liberals advancing peace cant afford to dismiss the openings that exist to include the communities committed to it. Political compromise cannot satisfy the extremists, but the effort to get there must include willing portion of the religious opposition, or at least convince them to refrain from spoiling the effort.

Dahlia Scheindlin is a political scientist and public opinion expert, and a policy fellow at The Century Foundation.Twitter:@dahliasc

Go here to see the original:

Can God solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? - Haaretz

By Richard D. Land, Christian Post Executive Editor | Tuesday, May 17, 2022Unsplash/ Natalie Chaney

Life is full of surprises, some pleasant, some not. I was reminded of this recently as I witnessed a pro-life controversy and debate revolving around an attack on the pro-life movements incrementalist approach in fighting to protect our unborn citizens by Southern Baptist self-described absolutists who assert that one must demand a ban on virtually all abortions with no exceptions, or one is compromising with evil.

To understand my shock at this development, you need to understand that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is my spiritual home. I was enrolled in the cradle roll as an infant in a local Southern Baptist church. I was led to the Lord Jesus as my Savior and Lord at age 6 through a backyard Child Evangelism Good News Club sponsored by that church. I was nurtured and discipled in the faith, called to preach, and trained for ministry in a Southern Baptist context.

For those within the Southern Baptist family, you will know what I am saying when I tell you that I was a sunbeam, a Royal Ambassador (the Baptist alternative to the Boy Scouts), had several years of perfect attendance pins in Sunday School and spent many summers attending mosquito-infested youth camps Southern Baptists maintained along the Texas Gulf Coast. For good measure, I met and married my wife of 51 years (a Southern Baptist ministers daughter) while we were seminary students.

I am profoundly grateful for that rich spiritual and cultural heritage that honored the Bible as truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter and a deep commitment to the fulfillment of the Great Commission to evangelize at home and across the world.

The SBC has been unapologetically and vigorously pro-life ever since the Conservative Resurgence began in 1979. I was privileged to contribute to that pro-life effort, having been active in the pro-life cause since before the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, advocating for the pro-life cause while a seminary student (1969-1972) in states such as Massachusetts and California (under Reagan before he became pro-life), which in the late 1960s passed very liberal abortion laws.

Imagine my shock that a scathing critique of the pro-life movements incrementalist strategy as a sinful compromise of biblical principles would arise within Southern Baptist life originated by the SBCs passage of a very problematic resolution On Abolishing Abortion at its 2021 annual meeting in Nashville.

This resolution is not, I believe, indicative of where the vast majority of Southern Baptists are on the issue. Here are the reasons why I believe this to be so. First, the same convention meeting that passed this resolution also overwhelmingly passed a resolution commending the Hyde Amendment, a classic case of incrementalism in that Hyde forbids the use of federal tax funding or state matching Medicaid funds for almost all abortions. Unless the Southern Baptists attending the Convention were schizophrenic, one of the two resolutions is an anomaly.

Second, the On Abolishing Abortion resolution also contradicts numerous pro-life resolutions, all incrementalist, passed by the Convention over the last 40 years, some of which I helped write.

Third, as one who has studied the issues of the sanctity of human life within the SBC (as head of the Conventions public policy agency, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission from 1988 to 2013), it was my business to be as fully aware as possible of the pulse beat of Southern Baptists on the abortion issue.

During those years, with remarkable regularity, approximately 85% to 90% of Southern Baptists when surveyed were broadly speaking pro-life. About 10% wanted no exception for any reason and just under 10% were against virtually any legal restrictions on abortion. About 40% of Southern Baptists wanted exceptions to save the mothers physical life and just under 40% also wanted exceptions for rape, incest, and at least fatal deformity in the fetus.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) has a two-fold assignment from the SBC in the public policy arena. As the so-called conscience of the Convention, the ERLC has the freedom in that role to call Southern Baptists to be where we believe they should be on moral issues such as abortion based on our understanding of biblical revelation and the Baptist Faith & Message (the Conventions confession).

During my tenure, the position we called Southern Baptists and other people of faith to embrace was that God is involved whenever conception takes place and that every abortion stops a beating human heart. We argued that the only morally valid reason for taking an unborn babys life was to save the mothers physical life.

The ERLCs second assignment was to make the three branches of the U.S. government, the United Nations, and the public at large aware of where Southern Baptists actually were (as opposed to where we might have desired them to be) when a consensus position on various issues developed among Southern Baptists.

Accordingly, when the ERLC submitted amicus or friend of the court briefs on abortion cases, we informed the Supreme Court that while the great majority of Southern Baptists were opposed to abortion on demand, there was significant disagreement when it came to some of the troublesome exceptions.

Consequently, I signed on to the statement by seven leading Southern Baptist ethicists, Why We Opposed an Anti-Abortion Resolution at the Southern Baptist Convention.

In the interest of clarity and to avoid misunderstanding, allow me to state my personal position on abortion, a position which has not changed from 1969 onward. I believe that life begins at conception (Ps. 139:13-16; Jer. 1:5) and that abortion is always the taking of a human life. I believe the only morally valid reason for aborting a pre-born human being is when the pre-born baby is a direct threat to his or her mothers continued physical existence.

I believe God is involved whenever conception takes place. We may have been a surprise to our parents, but we were not a surprise to God. Each of us was once a child, an infant, and a fetus. None of us was ever a sperm or an egg.

However, since I am not a pacifist, I believe it is morally permissible to protect a human life that is imperiled by taking a human life if that is the only lifesaving option available.

So how do other pro-life Southern Baptist leaders and I answer the charge of the abolitionists that we are compromising with evil by accepting an incremental approach to protecting the unborn and their mothers from abortion?

First, when Roe was issued by the Supreme Court in 1973, the pro-life movement was presented with an imperial judicial fait accompli, striking down virtually all the restrictions on most of the laws in the various states that limited abortion. As Benjamin Wittes, senior fellow at the very liberal Brookings Institution correctly concluded, Roe is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.

As a consequence, virtually the entire Protestant-Catholic pro-life coalition embraced the incrementalist approach in order to save as many unborn babies as possible.

They did this after the pro-life movement advanced several human life amendments to the Constitution and proposed sweeping legislation that would have dealt a death blow to abortion on demand. The pro-abortion movement defeated those initiatives. In response, the pro-life movement began to try to save as many babies as they could while they attempted to change hearts and minds.

For example, they passed the Hyde Amendment, which forbade tax funding for almost all abortions. The Charlotte Lozier Institute has estimated that Hyde saves approximately 60,000 lives a year (2,409,311 babies) since 1976.

Should the pro-life movement, incrementalists by political necessity rather than preference, have let these babies die because we could not save all the babies by abolishing abortion? Should we have sacrificed these babies on the altar of the abolitionists ethical purity and their more pro-life than thou argumentation?

What if I came upon a wrecked school bus that had plunged into a river with 60 children onboard? Since I cant save all of them, should I then do nothing? I think not. I believe God would have me plunge in and save as many as I could, going back again and again as long as there were children to be saved, rather than dithering on the bank, deciding to save none of them because I cant save all of them.

During my tenure as president of the ERLC, I received a phone call from a Southern Baptist pastor (when you are the head of the SBCs ethics commission you sometimes receive these kinds of calls). The pastor was in the Intensive Care Unit of the Emergency Room with the Chairman of his deacons. The deacons wife had been involved in a catastrophic automobile accident and was hovering between life and death in extremely critical condition. She was also pregnant.

The doctors on duty in the hospital were in unanimous agreement that if they were not allowed to take the baby (at 12 weeks gestation, too young to survive outside the womb), then both mother and baby would die because of the strain on the critically injured mothers heart.

The pastor informed me the deacon was asking him, Pastor, I need my wife and my other three children need their mother. Can I give the doctors the go ahead to take the baby? The pastor then asked me, Dr. Land, what do I tell him?

I answered, I do not believe you should tell him he cant. He must seek the Lords guidance and make the decision himself.

Then the pastor asked, What would you do if it were you?

I replied, I would authorize the procedure to take the baby to save the mother of my other children, but I would not judge him if he made a different choice.

Would the abolitionists really argue that the government should tell him he could not make the decision to save his wifes life? I fear they might, and they would be wrong.

Another argument advanced by the abolitionists is to be open to criminally charging pregnant mothers in cases where their child is aborted.

From the beginning of my involvement in the pro-life movement in 1969, we have overwhelmingly perceived mothers as victims, not perpetrators, of abortion. That certainly has been and continues to be my understanding, belief, conviction, and experience.

Over and over again I have heard pro-life advocates passionately argue that in any abortion there are at least two victims the aborted baby and his or her mother.

It is this disagreement over holding the mother legally accountable that has led to the latest controversy on this issue in Southern Baptist life.

Now, there are prominent Southern Baptist leaders who are calling for the defunding of the ERLC because the ERLCs acting president, Brent Leatherwood, signed An Open Letter to State Lawmakers from Americas Leading Pro-life Organizations. This Open Letter, signed by virtually every major pro-life organization in America, states, Women are victims of abortion and require our compassion and support as well as ready access to counseling and social services in the days, weeks, months, and years following an abortion.

The letter then concludes with this statement: As national and state pro-life organizations, representing tens of millions of pro-life men, women, and children across the country, let us be clear: We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.

For the record, if I were still the head of the ERLC, I would have signed this statement. I would have been ashamed of myself if I had not signed it.

This is the document that some SBC leaders are using as the reason to defund the ERLC.

And this is precisely the moment when the SBC and the pro-life movement have never needed the ERLC more as the battle for hearts and minds for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death and everywhere in between is going to go to the elected legislatures of all 50 states. The ERLC will be an invaluable resource to Southern Baptists in every state as they seek to defend the unborn and their mothers in all fifty states.

Instead of calling for the ERLCs defunding, we should be calling Southern Baptists everywhere to lift up the ERLC presidential search committee and trustees in prayer that God will lead them to the person God has been preparing since before being knitted and embroidered together in the womb (Jer. 1:5, Ps. 139:13-16) to be the next president of the ERLC, whomever he or she may be.

Dr. Richard Land, BA (Princeton, magna cum laude); D.Phil. (Oxford); Th.M (New Orleans Seminary). Dr. Land served as President of Southern Evangelical Seminary from July 2013 until July 2021. Upon his retirement, he was honored as President Emeritus and he continues to serve as an Adjunct Professor of Theology & Ethics. Dr. Land previously served as President of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (1988-2013) where he was also honored as President Emeritus upon his retirement. Dr. Land has also served as an Executive Editor and columnist for The Christian Post since 2011.

Dr. Land explores many timely and critical topics in his daily radio feature, Bringing Every Thought Captive, and in his weekly column for CP.

Link:

Whats the best way to be pro-life?: A Southern Baptist debate - The Christian Post