text:
Hong Kong to ban films and punish unauthorized screenings on grounds of ‘national security’ · Global Voices
Hong Kong Free Press

Screen capture from the trailer of “Revolution of our Times” on Youtube.
The following post was written by Kelly Ho and published by Hong Kong Free Press on October 27, 2021. It has been republished on Global Voices under a content partnership agreement.
Hong Kong's legislature has passed a bill which will enable the government to prevent films deemed contrary to national security from being screened or published in the city. Any person who exhibits an unauthorized film could face up to three years in jail and a 1 million HK dollar fine (approximately 130,000 US dollars).
The proposed amendments to the Film Censorship Ordinance were approved on October 28, with landslide support from pro-establishment lawmakers during their last meeting in the sixth Legislative Council (LegCo) term.
The new law will require film censors in Hong Kong to evaluate whether the exhibition of a film would be “contrary” to national security interests before allowing it to be screened locally.
Under the new law, the city's chief secretary (currently John Lee who is a former police officer), a member of the Committee on National Security, will gain sweeping powers to revoke approvals at any time if they believe the presentation of a film will harm national security.
An inspector authorized by the censorship agency may also enter and search premises without a warrant if they are trying to halt an unauthorized film screening or publication if it is “not reasonably practicable” to obtain a warrant.
Heavier penalties will be imposed on those who show films that are not exempted or approved by the authorities, as the offense is punishable by up to three years in prison and a 1 million HK dollar fine.
Local film censors may ask for up to 28 days to review films that may involve national security considerations. Filmmakers may not challenge the censorship body's decision, as the new legislation will bar the Board of Review from reconsidering decisions made on national security grounds.
The new stipulations came months after Hong Kong director Kiwi Chow debuted his documentary “Revolution of Our Times” at the Cannes Film Festival in July. The film about the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests was not exhibited in Hong Kong and was slammed by local Beijing-backed newspapers as advocating independence, a major offense under the national security law.
Other documentaries related to the 2019 unrest, including “Inside the Red Brick Wall” about the siege of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, have been pulled from commercial screening.
In urging the lawmakers to pass the bill, the government said in a LegCo document that there were films portraying national security offenses and depicting “serious criminal behaviour.” They claim the overall content, context, and arrangement of these films would be effectively “endorsing, “glorifying or inciting” people to commit those acts — particularly impressionable young people.
Currently, some films which have been deemed politically sensitive, such as “Ten Years“, are available to view on video streaming sites and platforms like Netflix.  Some legislators like Luk Chung-hung of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions suggested the government update the laws to fill the “loophole.”
“The framework of the ordinance is outdated… I am worried this may become a major loophole in the future,” Luk said.
In response, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau said the suggestions to regulate films shown online would be outside the scope of the bill. He said the government would need more time to “carefully and comprehensively” consider adding further changes to the local film censorship system.
When asked if YouTube or other online platforms would be affected by the current legislation, a spokesperson for the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau told HKFP in August that “other” laws apply to the internet.
“[TV] broadcast and the Internet are subject to other applicable law and regulations. Whether an act constitutes a crime or otherwise would depend on its specific circumstances and evidence, and cannot be taken in isolation or generalised,” they said.

author: Hong Kong Free Press


text:
Turkey finally ratifies the Paris Climate Agreement · Global Voices
Arzu Geybullayeva

“President Zuma in France for Climate Change Conference, 29 Nov to 30 Nov 2015″ by GovernmentZA is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0
More than five years after signing it, Turkey has become the final G20 member state to ratify the 2015 Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change. On October 7, the Turkish parliament approved the bill unanimously. The decision comes ahead of the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26, taking place in Glasgow this year, between October 31 and November 12.
Turkey also announced its goal to achieve net-zero emissions by 2053. But signing the agreement is not enough. According to Climate Action Tracker, the country's efforts to reach the Paris accord's goals are “critically insufficient.”
Meanwhile, this summer, Turkey experienced the worst series of natural disasters and environmental crises to date.
Drought in Lake Van caused thousands of flamingoes to die in July, while a substance called “sea snot” covered the coasts of the Marmara Sea for months, making the seashore unusable. In August, some 240 wildfires raged through Turkey's southern coast. Shortly after the fires, Turkey's Black Sea region was hit by flash floods and mudslides because of torrential rain. Local experts have also voiced criticism over the government's lack of a comprehensive and holistic climate change policy and excessive construction projects which disregard environmental damage. According to Climate Action Tracker, “Turkey's climate policies and commitments reflect minimal to no action and are not at all consistent with the Paris Agreement. Under Turkey's current targets and policies, emissions will continue to rise and are consistent with more than 4°C warming.”
The agreement was initially adopted by 196 Parties at COP21 in Paris in December 2015. Known also as the Paris Accords or the Paris Climate Accords, it came into effect in November 2016. Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.
The indicators estimated by the Climate Action Tracker for Turkey call for immediate action, which authorities are struggling to ignore. In an interview with Politico in August 2021, Levent Kurnaz, director of Istanbul's Boğaziçi University Climate Change and Policies Research Center, said, “They will change because they have to change now. They have seen how serious this issue is and how much harm can come out of these problems in the future, as well.”
Speaking to Al-Monitor, co-spokesperson for Turkey's Green Party, Emin Ozkan agrees, adding that floods and wildfires from this summer, and the country's economic crisis “are pressing the government from every angle.”
Though President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan delivered an environment and climate-focused speech at the UN General Assembly in New York last month, where he also announced Turkey's decision to ratify the Paris Agreement, critics say the threat of climate change was not what spurred the ratification. The decision came shortly after Erdoğan received guarantees of financial support from France, Germany, the World Bank's International Finance Corporation, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, according to reports by Politico and Reuters.
Previously, Ankara said the reason it had not signed the agreement was because of unfair classification. Turkey was ranked as an Annex I group country — a “developed” or “industrialized” country — which prevented it from seeking funding, unlike nations ranked as “developing.” After sending a request to the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to have its name removed from that list, the country expects to finalize its ranking at the upcoming summit in Glasgow.
In January this year, 37 local non-governmental organizations signed a petition calling on the government to ratify the Paris Agreement. Now that the government finally approved the document, all eyes are on the ruling government and the implementation process.
On October 7, 15 local environmental groups released a statement, recommending the government adopt short-term targets if it wants to meet its goals to reduce emissions by 2053:
Turkey ranks 16th among the countries that cause the most greenhouse gas emissions in the world and its per capita emission level is increasing every day. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Turkey must first set short-term climate targets that will cover the period until 2053.
In an interview with Al-Monitor, Onder Algedik, a mechanical engineer and independent climate consultant, said, “the Turkish government should ‘urgently’ shut down coal-fired power plants, stop subsidizing fossil fuel investments and redirect funds to advance energy-efficiency projects under a plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.” How exactly the ruling government will carry out its plans is yet to be seen.
According to the Climate Transparency Turkey report, Turkey draws 38 percent of its energy from coal and continues to invest in new coal-fired power plants. In May this year, the energy ministry announced that it would award around 500 coal mines to investors in public tenders.
On October 12, speaking after the Presidential cabinet meeting, President Erdoğan announced plans to establish a “Climate Change and Compliance Coordination Board” within the renamed “Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change Ministry” (previously the Environment and Urbanization Ministry). A council meeting is set to take place in January 2022, where the rebranded government body will determine a long-term strategic action plan to combat the climate crisis, according to Environment and Urbanization Minister Murat Kurum.

source: news-globalvoices

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Arzu Geybullayeva


text:
Sri Lanka sacks agricultural scientist for raising concerns over agro-chemical ban · Global Voices
Rezwan

Food grains in Negombo, Sri Lanka. Image via Flickr by Mike. CC BY-NC 2.0.
Sri Lanka is facing a food crisis. In 2021, The Sri Lankan rupee fell against the US dollar by 7.5 percent, triggering food inflation of 10 percent. On August 30, 2021, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared an economic emergency to control the soaring food prices and to prevent traders from hoarding foodstuff. The step was taken to control the supply of basic food and set affordable prices for consumers to control inflation.
However, the government has denied that there is a food crisis in Sri Lanka, claiming that the country is lucky enough to withstand the global food crisis due to COVID-19.
Some experts are saying that Sri Lanka’s sudden move to total organic farming is what has led to this crisis. On April 29, 2021, the cabinet of Sri Lanka approved a ban on the import of chemical fertilizers and other agrochemicals. Rajapaksha then vowed to eliminate the use of chemical fertilizers in Sri Lanka, making it the first country in the world to do so.
Saman Dharmakeerthi, a Professor of Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrition at the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Peradeniya, warned that “organic farming is not the paradigm for sustainable agriculture and food security” and this can lead to a food crisis.
On October 26, 2021, the Ministry of Agriculture mentioned in a statement that it had removed Professor Buddhi Marambe, a top adviser, from all his government positions after he criticised the government policy of moving towards total organic farming. Professor  Marambe also works in the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Peradeniya, and the allegation against him is that he wrote articles criticising the government move and was widely quoted in the news.
Sri Lankan science writer Nalaka Gunawardene opined on Twitter:
Science & reason keep losing out in #SriLanka govt's rush to turn whole country's farming #organic at once. Top agri expert @BuddhiMarambe was sacked this week from advisory posts for questioning hasty, unrealistic process that threatens #lka food securityhttps://t.co/sGFPHRfPsT pic.twitter.com/Es0jLMCZ1N
— Nalaka Gunawardene (@NalakaG) October 27, 2021
The island nation Sri Lanka imports a significant portion of its food needs, including essential items such as wheat flour, cereal, sugar and pulses. During August and September 2021, over 1,000 containers of food essentials were waiting to be unloaded from the Colombo port, with importers struggling to pay their import bills because of a shortage of US dollars. This led to a supply shortage, pushing up the price of essential foods. On October 8, 2021, the government ended the controversial price control system on essentials in a bid to end black market trading, which allowed prices to rise more.
No shortage of Food for thought amidst Food crisis.
Cartoons by @RcSullan @Nikshazz and @NamalAmarasing #FoodCrisis #SriLanka #LKA #Cartoons pic.twitter.com/TfdmCpey62
— Groundviews (@groundviews) October 21, 2021
In 2020, the pandemic had adversely affected Sri Lanka's economy, which contracted to 3.6 percent. In July 2021, the country’s foreign exchange reserves fell to US$ 2.8 billion, compared to US$ 7.5 billion in 2019. The country's debt burden had also risen dramatically over the past decade, as per World Bank figures.
However, a number of people think that the ban on chemical fertilizers is a major cause of the food crisis. A subsistence farmer voiced concern on Sri Lankan citizen journalism website Groundviews in May 2021:
If the ban on chemical fertilizer is implemented, there will be a massive reduction in agricultural output in the near term creating shortages, riots and unprecedented price rises of products and we will simply not be able to feed the population without a substantial increase in imports.
In light of the cabinet's decision, the Sri Lankan government formally banned the import of synthetic fertilizers and agrochemicals including herbicides and insecticides on May 6, 2021. This led to a fertilizer crisis in the following months as alternatives were still to be imported.
According to a survey by Verite Research, last July, only 9 percent of Sri Lankan farmers do not use any chemical fertilizer, and 76 percent of them rely heavily on chemicals. Although many support the government decision to shift to organic, 80 percent of respondents said they needed at least one year to prepare themselves.
Some reports indicate that organic fertilizers are less efficient than chemical fertilizers, and affect productivity, reducing yield by as much as 25 percent. The situation has threatened the prized tea industry in Sri Lanka and a crop disaster is feared.
Professor Gamini Herath wrote in a two-part opinion post in the Daily FT, Sri Lanka’s national daily business paper, that “the introduction of 100% organic farming without adequate planning by experts is a perfect recipe for chaos” and “a full conversion to organic agriculture as envisaged by the government of Sri Lanka is totally unrealistic.”
Food and framing analyst Saloni Shah tweeted:
The Sri Lankan government has banned synthetic fertilizers, widely used in growing tea and rice in the country, for months. The consequences call for greater nuance in conversations around fertilizer use, especially in LIMCs, where a complete shift to organic ag is unfeasible
— Saloni Shah (@SaloniShah101) September 14, 2021
In recent months, farmers across Sri Lanka have started protesting to demand a solution to the fertilizer crisis.
Chandrasena Maliyadde writes in Groundviews:
On April 29, President announced that Sri Lanka would transform agriculture from chemical fertilizers to organic substitutes. The advice of experts and practitioners in agriculture was not sought. Conversion to organic agriculture has to be done in a systematic, scientific manner based on research and lesson learning rather than being rhetoric and emotional. The end result is the farmers have come off the field onto the highways.
While there are still debates on whether the ban on chemical fertilizers is realistic or rhetoric, and what lessons can be learned from this crisis, Vidura Munasinghe warns on Groundviews:
If the state’s ban on chemical fertilizer fails; it will kill hopes for food security, healthy food, the possibility of alleviating poverty among farmers and a sustained ecosystem.

author: Rezwan


text:
The ‘Day of the Dead’ sparks painful memories of violence in El Salvador · Global Voices
Eddie Galdamez

Salvadoran cemetery. Photo by @alcaldia_ss licensed under (CC BY-SA 4.0)
El Salvador is full of marvelous customs and traditions. These celebrations involve joyful family gatherings, religious activities, live music, traditional foods, and dancing until late into the night. Many come from Christian traditions and others have their roots in pre-colonial times.
People of all ages look forward to these holidays. For instance, kids look forward to Christmas so they can get presents, not go to school, set off small fireworks all month, and eat traditional foods, such as panes con pollo. Religious Roman Catholic people look forward to Easter's Holy Week to strengthen their faith. Others just look forward to holidays to relax at the beaches and have barbecues with family or friends.
Yet, there is one Salvadoran celebration that not many look forward to, me included: The “Day of the Dead” or All Souls Day, when like in many other countries with Christian backgrounds, families visit graveyards to commemorate their deceased loved ones.
The Day of the Dead celebrations originated in Mexico centuries ago. From October 31st to November 2nd, family members go to cemeteries where their loved ones are buried, clean their graves, and decorate with flowers. All Souls Day is a Roman Catholic celebration that dates back to the ninth century during which people pray for the souls of those who passed away. Both traditions pay respect to those who have died but the forms of commemoration are different.
Whatever the name of the holiday, for many Salvadorans, it brings back painful memories of relatives or friends who were killed or disappeared during El Salvador's Civil War in the 1980s or the unstable decades that followed. About 80,000 people were killed during the war, which was heavily funded by the United States in the context of the Cold War, and many more were disappeared or forcibly displaced in a country with fewer than five million people at the time.
To this day, these deaths are still fresh in the minds of those who lost relatives or friends, especially because of the impunity enjoyed by the majority of those who were guilty of atrocities during and after the civil war.
My family lived in a small rural town, in the heart of the conflict, in eastern El Salvador. I saw first-hand the atrocities committed by both the army and the guerillas. In 1982, one of my uncles disappeared. I was a child back then, and every time a body was found, we had to go and see if he resembled our uncle. From the age of five until I was nine years old, in 1986, I had seen too many dead bodies. In 1989, I moved to the United States.
I didn't lose any closer family members during the war, but that was not the case for tens of thousands of families who lost fathers, mothers, sisters, or brothers. Many people who survived the civil war now visit cemeteries and are painfully reminded of this dark time.
Maria Ofelia Barahona lost her husband and two kids. To this date, she is still grieving their loss and brews resentment. Every November, she relives bitter memories. She told me:
La guerrilla mató a mi marido y los soldados mataron a mis dos hijos. No es justo que los murieron solo por vivir en una zona conflictiva, ” dijo Ofelia.
The guerrillas killed my husband, and the soldiers killed my two kids. It is not fair that they got killed just for living in a warzone,” said Ofelia.
Even though November 2nd is a distressing date for her, she visits the cemetery, cleans the graves, and brings flowers every year, just like thousands of other Salvadorans.
Día de los Difuntos from El Salvador ??
People visit the cemeteries to bring flowers to their loved ones, this is known as “enflorar.” Some people also bring musicians so that they sing to them as a way to remember the songs that they liked. pic.twitter.com/QcrHyL8INu
— Central American Art (@CentAm_Beauty) November 2, 2018
After the civil war ended, things didn't improve in El Salvador; if anything, they got worse in the form of a low-intensity conflict. The war left most of Salvadoran society in poverty, with broken family ties, weak political institutions, and no way out.
Since 1992, chronic violence in El Salvador increased—more Salvadorans have died in violent conditions after the civil war ended than during the armed conflict. Crime reached its peak in 2015. That year, an average of 18 people were killed per day or 104 per 100,000 inhabitants, making El Salvador one of the deadliest countries in the world.
On November 2nd, families who have lost loved ones to crime and gang wars visit cemeteries. For many, it is a painful reminder of perpetual violence in El Salvador.
Orlando Jimenes, or Don Orlando as he is affectionally called, knows this pain well. Since 2011, he has lost five grandkids to gang violence.
No les voy a dar excusas. Ellos eligieron esa vida y pagaron el precio máximo. Sin embargo, eso no lo hace más fácil, eran mis nietos y todavía los amo, ” expresó el Sr. Jimenes.
I am not going to make excuses for them. They chose that life and paid the ultimate price. However, that does not make it any easier, they were my grandkids, and I still love them,” expressed Mr. Jimenes.
However, not everyone feels sad or angry during this holiday. Many Salvadorans look forward to paying respect to their friends and family who passed away. Some even go as far as bringing a mariachi band to cemeteries.
Día de los difuntos en El Salvador, Noviembre, de 2 pic.twitter.com/3jzcBFA3tj
— Joe Maxim (@1cosmopolitan) November 2, 2018
I have been fortunate enough not to have lost a loved one to violence, but seeing the sadness and pain that many people endure during this day makes me grieve with them. El Salvador is still in mourning for those who died in brutal conditions.

author: Eddie Galdamez


text:
Hong Kong stays firm on zero-COVID policy as its top strategy to reconnect with China · Global Voices
Oiwan Lam

An empty arrival hall at the Hong Kong international airport. File photo: Candice Chau/HKFP. Used with permission.
So if Hong Kong were to loosen border controls for people arriving from overseas or adopt with what other countries have done — so-called to live with Covid-19 virus — then the chances to travel with the mainland will be reduced.
Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam said this during an interview on October 26 in response to the financial lobbying group Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's request to relax the 14–21 day mandatory quarantine rules for all travelers entering from other countries.
With over 150 institutions, the finance trade group  warned earlier this week that Hong Kong’s zero-COVID strategy would undermine the city’s status as a financial hub.
The group conducted a survey among its members before issuing the warning letter:
The Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association said 48% of its members were contemplating moving staff or functions away from Hong Kong due to operational challenges, which included uncertainty travel and quarantine restrictions. https://t.co/GK65vX5NBT
— Mike Bird (@Birdyword) October 25, 2021
At the same time, HSBC’s 2021 expat explorer survey indicated that Hong Kong’s livability rank has fallen from 20 in 2019 to 40 in 2021 and its future outlook rank has fallen from 15 to 41 in the same period. Its overall ranking is now lower than that of Thailand and just slightly better than the Philippines. Meanwhile, Singapore ranks 9 and Taiwan 15 globally in the survey.
The American Chamber of Commerce had previously issued a similar warning urging the Hong Kong government to relax its quarantine requirements.
Under the zero-COVID policy, Hong Kong required a 14–21 day compulsory quarantine for all inbound travelers through a list of designated hotels. They also implemented compulsory mask-wearing in all public spaces, contact tracking, community lockdown, and mass testing whenever a local infection is detected, even though the city has had single-digit local daily infections for months.
Medical experts, like epidemiologist Ben Cowling from the University of Hong Kong, have questioned the lengthy compulsory quarantine requirement, particularly the 21-day confinement for fully vaccinated travelers from high-risk countries, which include the majority of countries in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the US. In addition, the current control policy does not provide city residents with vaccination incentives.
Thus far, only about 60 percent of the city population has been fully vaccinated. Vaccination among the elderly, 80 years old and over, is still less than 17 percent.
But the pleas and doubts raised by the economic and medical sectors have not received a positive response.
Instead of relaxation, travel restrictions will be further tightened as the government decided to scrap most quarantine exemptions granted to specific groups of visitors coming from overseas and mainland China.
Hong Kong currently allows diplomats and business leaders as well as Hong Kong residents returning from Guangdong and Macau to be exempted from the compulsory quarantine rule. The upcoming arrangement will only allow essential workers such as cross-border truck drivers to make quarantine-free trips.
The vaccination requirements for incoming travelers will also be lowered from age 17 to age 12, starting October 29.
Additionally, starting October 27, recovered COVID-19 patients discharged from Hong Kong hospitals have to undergo an extra 14 days of quarantine in a medical facility. Again, Ben Cowling raised his doubt on Twitter:
The cynical (though not necessarily incorrect) reading is that it's not epidemiology but politics that is driving this policy. The HK govt has put all its chips on reopening the mainland border, so we endure whatever it thinks will make that magic happen. https://t.co/S9qjB8yLNg
— Paul Freelend (@PaulFreelend) October 27, 2021
Indeed, Carrie Lam’s statement has made it quite clear that the city’s top priority is to reopen the border with mainland China. In order to do so, the government will not hesitate to introduce more restrictive rules which are currently implemented in China, even if they would infringe upon individuals’ privacy and rights.
The political motivation has triggered skepticism about the city's pandemic control policies. Even those who agree with the zero-COVID strategy, which has effectively suppressed local outbreaks, are becoming doubtful about the government’s pandemic control policy:
covid zero *is* working in HK, in that we haven't had any community infections in six months. But HK govt is increasingly bending over backwards to prove to Beijing that it can maintain this because they want the China border reopened. So that means closing off outside world more https://t.co/2b0DP1rhxa
— Dr. Groundhog Day ?? (@Comparativist) October 27, 2021
Border crossings between Hong Kong and Shenzhen have been restricted for more than 20 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To facilitate quarantine-free cross-border travel, in June 2020, the Hong Kong government began negotiating with Guangdong province and Macau to create a mutually recognized health code policy.
Currently, Guangdong and Macau have a quarantine-free travel arrangement as the two Chinese regions share a mutually recognized health code policy. Both administrations adopt a tri-color QR code system to indicate a person’s health risk and restrict their movement, but the Macau application does not have a geo-tracking function. The color is assigned according to the user's health status and contact list. But the quarantine-free travel arrangement would be suspended for 21 days whenever one local infection is observed.
On the other hand, the mainland Chinese system will track the user’s movement and automatically raise their risk level if they have been to places where an infected person has visited.
The Hong Kong government hopes that it could adopt a system similar to Macau's and further require users to voluntarily submit their contact-tracking data stored in the “LeaveHomeSafe” application.
The “LeaveHomeSafe” application is used for contact tracking in Hong Kong. Contact data is stored locally in users’ mobile devices and will only be shared with the authorities if the user is infected.
After some citizens hesitated to use the application, the Hong Kong government made it compulsory for people who visit government and public service venues starting November 1.
The policy has stirred controversy as there are still some residents who do not have smartphones. However, the authorities consider it a necessary step to get Beijing’s approval for the border-crossing health code, which will enter a trial period soon.
Despite the effort to boost the usage of the local contact tracking app, Tam Yiu-chung, a member of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, believes that Beijing will not accept the proposal.
If the proposal is not accepted, the only option left is for those who have to travel to Macau and mainland Chinese to implement the mainland Chinese version of the health code and permit authorities to track users’ location data, as advocated by the former Chief Executive Leung Chung-Ying among other Pro-Beijingers.
However, even if the cross-border health code system is in place, the quarantine-free arrangement would be suspended if there is a local infection under the “zero-covid strategy,” which makes it very likely that Hong Kong may end up cut off from the world, yet unable to restore normal connection with China:
A lose-lose Hong Kong's zero-COVID policy — weakening intl financial hub status and yet no quarantine-free travel to China for HK residents. Singapore won't complain.https://t.co/NsiioiMgup
— Jack Soh (@JackKSoh) October 25, 2021

author: Oiwan Lam


text:
‘Loss and Damage’ are critical issues for fragile Caribbean states at COP26 · Global Voices
Emma Lewis

Weise Road in the Bull Bay area of Jamaica, in October 2020 after heavy rains caused the nearby Chalky River to overflow, causing the road to break away. Photo credit: The Ministry of Housing, Urban Renewal, Environment and Climate Change, used with permission.
The term “Loss and Damage” speaks for itself, but in the context of the climate crisis, it embraces a wide range of issues that are particularly concerning for Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which often find themselves on the frontline of climate change impacts.
The Warsaw International Mechanism addressing Loss and Damage was set up in 2013, and is included in the historic 2015 Paris Agreement. However, many developing countries—including the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), to which the Caribbean belongs—feel the issue should have a much higher profile at the UNFCC Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland, which runs from October 31 to November 12.
Before she left for Glasgow, I had a Zoom call with Le-Anne Roper, the senior technical officer for adaptation in the climate change division of Jamaica’s Ministry of Housing, Urban Renewal, Environment and Climate Change—who will also serve as AOSIS’ lead negotiator on Loss and Damage at the conference—to figure out how smaller developing nations can push for a stronger focus on the Loss and Damage they have been experiencing almost weekly.
Le-Anne Roper, the senior technical officer for adaptation in the climate change division of Jamaica’s Ministry of Housing, Urban Renewal, Environment and Climate Change, and lead negotiator on Loss and Damage for the Alliance of Small Island States at COP-26 in Glasgow, Scotland. Phtoto credit: The Ministry of Housing, Urban Renewal, Environment and Climate Change, used with permission.
Emma Lewis (EL): What does Loss and Damage mean in climate change negotiations, and why is it so important for Jamaica and other Caribbean nations?
Le-Anne Roper (LAR): In the formal United Nations process there is not a standard definition [but] what has been agreed is that there are certainly some limits to where adaptation is possible. Adaptation involves reducing or reversing the harmful impacts of climate change—beyond those limits, Loss and Damage becomes a reality.
The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group of scientists (August 2021) unequivocally stated that the 1.1 degree increase in global warming since the industrial revolution is due to human activities. We are adjusting to a climate that is changing at a faster pace than we are. This is where Loss and Damage becomes more extreme, and more of a reality.
We can see that those limits are being reached and passed. We are already experiencing Loss and Damage in the Caribbean, forcing people to leave their homes due to floods, landslides and so on.
There are two types of events that we would call Loss and Damage. Both are contributing to the problem. There are the extreme events, which are easy to identify: in the Caribbean, hurricanes and floods, for example. Then, there are the slow onset events caused by climate change, which happen gradually—for example, sea level rise.
What we are seeing now is the multiplier effect of these types of happenings. The slow-onset events are making extreme events worse. For example, the impact of a storm on our coastlines is worsened by the fact that sea levels are rising.
The economic losses are easy enough to calculate. What we are trying to do now is to calculate non-economic losses [like] loss of life, ill health, injuries caused by disasters, vector-borne diseases, even the loss of indigenous knowledge, cultural heritage, loss of benefits from an ecosystem that is destroyed.
One example is in St. Margaret’s Bay, where people have abandoned their homes, because the sea has reclaimed them.
EL: Is Loss and Damage primarily a “developing country” issue? Are developed nations taking it seriously enough?
LAR: The nature of climate change is such that vulnerable developing countries like ours are always disproportionately affected. […] Nevertheless, developed countries are also suffering, [as with] the wildfires in the United States and Canada, and floods in Europe—but those countries have the ability to respond. For us on the frontline, it is beyond our capacity to respond sufficiently to protect our people.
This is an issue that is not of our doing.
EL: What will Jamaica's position on Loss and Damage be in the upcoming COP26 and what outcomes are you hoping for?
LAR: There is a need for a focused push for Loss and Damage to be treated with the kind of importance that it demands. In terms of finance, the mantra ‘it takes cash to care’ really does apply.
We are pushing for increased, amplified financing in addition to previous commitments made on finance. The $100 billion goal previously agreed on did not take Loss and Damage into account.
Discussions are beginning around a new finance goal [and] we must ensure that Loss and Damage is […] the third element in the conversation, in addition to Mitigation and Adaptation. In the past, it was merged into Adaptation, but we are pushing for it to stand on its own, separately, in the negotiations at COP26.
We need the Santiago Network [established in 2019] on Loss and Damage to be fully operating. This will bring together technical assistance from international and regional organisations, bodies, networks and individual experts, benefiting civil society and communities on the ground.
Weise Road in Jamaica's Bull Bay area after October 2020's heavy rains. Chalky River broke its banks and dumped a mountain of silt onto people’s homes, shops and the community's church. Photo credit: The Ministry of Housing, Urban Renewal, Environment and Climate Change, used with permission.
EL: How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected climate change negotiations?
LAR: The meetings were all virtual, and not all decisions can be made virtually. We had to delay formal negotiations. There will be less participation from developing countries at COP26, but AOSIS will do its best to ensure that even those unable to attend physically will have their views taken on board. […] Ideally, we would want to have everyone physically at the table, but we will make the best of a bad situation.
EL: Many Jamaican communities are increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. What can they do to protect their environment and livelihoods?
LAR: First, and most important, is to seek information. Communities need to become more knowledgeable. Once citizens understand the potential impact and risks of climate change, it puts them in a better position to assess their own risk and work out ways to reduce it. Without knowledge, you can be doing things that put you in an even worse position.
Partnering with organisations and governments on ways to adapt to climate change is important, contributing traditional [and experiential] knowledge. Unfortunately, since most of us live along [rapidly eroding] coastlines, communities also need to grasp the breadth of the impact of climate change. They will need to find alternative livelihoods, or supplementary ways of earning a living.
EL: Does this mean that people also have to change their mindset, perhaps move away from traditional ways of doing things?
LAR: For sure. The old ways we are used to need to be revisited. Indigenous knowledge is very important, but we need to recognise that some practices are no longer going to be viable.
EL: Finally, is Loss and Damage at COP26 all about getting more funding? Is money the issue and if so, where does the insurance industry fit in?
LAR: Insurance usually applies after an event has occurred—there’s a trigger for payout if certain criteria are met. The Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) is one such insurance [through which] regional governments buy premiums for their countries. It covers earthquakes, hurricanes, and excess rainfall—but insurance is just one aspect and mustn’t be seen as a saviour. There is a significant amount of financing required before something happens, so that the effect of it is less.
I want to stress that it’s important for high emitting, major polluters to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is what is driving the extremes of climate change. Meanwhile, we have to adapt. We must recognise that Loss and Damage is now a reality for us. The changes are already with us—we are committed to living with these extremes now.
We must be prepared. Our way of life will have to evolve. This is not just a ‘government thing.’ Everyone must come on board and play a role.

author: Emma Lewis


text:
Singapore’s new law against ‘foreign interference’ threatens to undermine free speech · Global Voices
Mong Palatino

The Singapore Parliament approved the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill (FICA) on October 4, 2021. Photo by Ross Websdale on Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0),
The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill (“FICA”) was tabled in the Singapore Parliament on September 13. It was passed three weeks later amid criticism that it contained broad and vague provisions that could be abused to stifle freedom of expression.
FICA aims to end malicious foreign interference “conducted through hostile information campaigns (HIC) and the use of local proxies.” In a press statement, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) explained the importance of the measure:
Foreign interference poses a serious threat to our political sovereignty and national security. During a HIC, hostile foreign actors can seek to mislead Singaporeans on political issues, stir up dissent and disharmony by playing up controversial issues such as race and religion, or seek to undermine confidence and trust in public institutions.
FICA empowers authorities to censor online content if it is suspected of being sponsored on behalf of a “foreign principal.” Individuals or groups who publish information and organize activities “directed towards a political end in Singapore” under the behest of a foreign party are covered by FICA. The government can designate them as “Politically Significant Persons” who are obliged to disclose their foreign affiliations.
An online petition summarizes how FICA can be used to censor the internet:
FICA allows the Minister for Home Affairs vast powers to issue directives that can censor online content and even shut down media outlets. All that is required for the issuance of such directions is for the Minister to be of the opinion that online communications activity has been undertaken, or has been suspected of being undertaken, on behalf of a foreign principal, and that it is in the public interest to take action.
Various sectors have expressed concern about how their work can be affected by FICA. Scholars Cherian George, Chong Ja Ian, Linda Lim and Teo You Yenn published an editorial warning about how the law “casts a broad shadow over activities that academics consider not only legitimate but also necessary: activities involving cross-border collaboration, wide online dissemination, and strong social impact.”
Why does FICA have to define key terms such as “political ends”, “public interest”, and “collaboration” so broadly that it could cover the legitimate work of academics and other active citizens? A plain reading of FICA’s language amounts to a powerful statement of discomfort with debates on controversial issues. It will feed into a culture that already strongly discourages critical, public-facing academic work, encouraging further self-censorship by university administrators.
Human rights group Maruah is also worried that its ties to foreigners who advocate similar campaigns can be interpreted as a violation of FICA:
With FICA, Maruah runs this risk as any one person or an entity, could become culpable, face investigations, handle stiff penalties and live with an irrevocable reputational branding of being disloyal to the country.
No one would want to be FICA-ed and yet the terms remain unclear and general on how influence and interference could be interpreted for a political end outcome.
Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam addressed some of the issues raised by critics and the opposition in parliament. He said that FICA is necessary to confront a big and real threat to Singapore society:
But the threat we face is people armed with bazookas, and I describe this legislation as a toy gun.
Singapore believes in the law, so we give ourselves legal powers. But in reality the kind of threats we face, the kind of adversaries and the resources they have in terms of manpower, are far greater than what we have.
He also dismissed the “doomsday scenarios” that the law would supposedly cause, reiterating that Singapore will remain a viable global hub:
So, some of these doomsday scenarios that FICA is going to close off foreign collaborations, if that is correct, we as a Government must have suddenly gone mad. Because in a country like Singapore, which depends so much on the flow of ideas and international collaboration, is that even thinkable?
He also answered the question about why appeals or petitions concerning FICA-related decisions should not be handled by the courts:
The judicial process will not be appropriate in matters where we rely heavily on sensitive intelligence, collaboration with foreign counterparts, many things cannot be publicly disclosed.
During a session in Parliament, the minister identified activist writer Kirsten Han as being among those who are allegedly spreading misinformation about FICA. He added that Han has been receiving foreign grants. Han wrote a rejoinder:
But, as we can see from this, it is the government that gets to point the finger and make accusations.
Many of the allegations made against me yesterday were claims that I had already clarified and responded to in 2018 and 2019. Under FICA, the Minister will now not only be able to continue repeating these claims, but also be empowered to act on these accusations, while my avenues for appeal will be limited, given the limits on judicial oversight.
This is why FICA is a dangerous law.
Eleven members of the Workers’ Party voted against FICA. Gerald Giam, a Member of Parliament, reminded the body that restrictive laws on the media could be a hindrance to monitoring foreign interference.
This could handicap our efforts to weed out hostile foreign interference. We cannot rely only on legislation, or law enforcement and intelligence agencies to stem foreign interference.
Given the risk that foreign interference poses to a small and open country like Singapore, we need to use more tools in our arsenal to counter it. By drawing on a wide range of intelligence, including research and exposure by the press, we are made more secure, not less. A free press which invests in investigative journalism can shine the light on shady activities, as well as inform and educate the public and policymakers about hostile information campaigns taking place on our shores.
Leon Perera, another MP belonging to the Workers’ Party, said that giving the government additional discretionary powers is the wrong solution:
Like all dangers Singapore faces, the solution should never be to simply give the government more and more and more broad discretionary powers that can be used against citizens, critics and opposition parties among others.
By staking so much on strengthening state discretionary powers in this manner, we diminish the role of education and trust in the political maturity of our citizens, who are better educated than ever.
Other opposition members noted that Singapore had enough laws that can help authorities protect national security and public interest, such as the Internal Security Act, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act.

author: Mong Palatino


text:
Song on Algerian radio show brings Christian minority’s plight to the fore · Global Voices
Raseef22

Algeria's Christian minority faces discrimination and prosecution amidst growing fundamentalism and government's failure to impose religious equality. The  file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
This piece was originally published on 22 October 2021 by Raseef22, an independent media platform. An edited version is republished here, under a content-sharing agreement.
Christians in Algeria are caught in a new crisis, which many feel is reflective of the intolerance with which the Algerian state deals with Christians and their beliefs.
This latest impasse began when a morning show on the state-owned Radio Constantine broadcasted the song “Eid al-Layl” (Night of the Feast) by renowned singer Fayrouz, which had a line that said: “Jesus visited the night…Jesus colored the night.” Not long after, the director of the radio station, Mourad Boukerzaza, was dismissed from his position, after being investigated for broadcasting songs and hymns glorifying the Christian religion.
News of his dismissal sparked an uproar on social media pages, between those opposing what they saw as the country becoming more “Daesh-like”, and those in favor of fighting religious proselytism.
#Lebanon #Algeria : Reports that several staff at a local radio station in Algeria have been sacked after complaints they were playing Christian songs sung by Fairouz – including apparently “Oh Jesus” #فيروز pic.twitter.com/YpHVbQTVIO
— sebastian usher (@sebusher) October 15, 2021
Such angry reactions were followed by Algerian Public Radio (EPRS) denying any relation between the radio station director's dismissal and the broadcast of Christian hymns. It disclosed that Mourad had been removed from his position for purely administrative reasons.
The government’s statement aside, the marginalization of Algerian Christians has worsened in the past few years, with many hiding their faith and belief from colleagues for fear of persecution.
Although the arrival of Christianity in Algeria happened in Roman times, its modern revival came at the hands of European immigrants in the nineteenth century. These European newcomers built churches, schools, and health centers, which led to a number of Algerian Muslims converting to Christianity, especially in the northern, Berber-speaking Kabylia region.
During this time, Catholic Christians of European origin had the best chance of obtaining high-level government positions, as well as appropriating a significant share of the Algerian economy.
Algeria's independence on July 5, 1962 marked the end of the golden age for Christians in the country. Statistics indicate that Christians at that time represented more than 12 percent of the country's population, but following independence, as many as 800,000 Christian settlers were evacuated to France; 200,000 decided to stay in Algeria.
Over time, with mounting restrictions that later turned violent, the percentage of Christians in Algeria decreased to just one percent of the population.
With Islamists gaining a foothold in Algeria, and Salafi trends becoming prevalent in the country, not only were Christians’ properties under threat, but their lives were too: members of the Christian clergy began to be targeted by extremists.
In 1962, the Oran massacre took the lives of 95 people, most of whom were of European origin. In 1996, seven Tibhirine monks were kidnapped in Algeria and murdered by the Armed Islamic Group (Groupe Islamique Armé, GIA). The same year saw an explosion that targeted the car of the Bishop of Oran, Pierre Claverie, killing both him and his driver instantly.
It was not Islamic fundamentalism alone that targeted Christians in Algeria; the state itself, through its various regimes, played an unmistakable role in stifling and restricting them.
According to the 2018 report of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Christians in Algeria were subjected to state repression that resulted in the closure of more than a dozen churches in 2017, with more closures continuing the following year. To date, these churches have not been reopened, and in June, the commission recommended that Algeria be placed on the State Department’s watch list.
These successive blows have been primarily directed at the Protestant denomination of Christianity, which some believe is due to the fact that—unlike the Catholic Church, which enjoys strong protection from Europe—the Protestant Church has no backing.
For their part, the biggest justification the Algerian authorities offered for closing churches is to prevent the proselytism and evangelization it accuses these churches of carrying out.
In speaking with the Algerian newspaper ElChorouk El Yawmi in October 2019, the governor of Tizi Ouzou said he had decided to close a church following a citizen's complaints over its suspicious activity. Some reports indicate that as of 2015, the number of Algerians who converted to Christianity exceeded 380,000, most of them from the Kabylia region.
In 2019, Sarah Leah Whitson, then the director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch, commented on the closure in an official statement:
Algerian authorities should allow religious minorities the same freedom to practice their faith as the Muslim majority. All churches that have been shut arbitrarily should be allowed to reopen.
One young Algerian Christian, who requested anonymity, told Raseef22, “I’ve faced many obstacles. It is very hard to tell people in Algeria that I am a Christian.”
He explained that the experience of Christians in the country varies according to region: “The more the region is inhabited by those who do not accept any differences or dissimilarities in their surroundings, the greater the danger and the threat.” Having lived in four different provinces, he could attest that the capital was by far the best in terms of acceptance and religious tolerance. As for living in one of Algeria’s inner cities, he remembers it as a bitter experience: “I was threatened, and unknown individuals demanded that I convert to Islam to ensure my own safety […] it was a terrible experience for me.”
Commenting on the circumstances of Christians, Cairo-based Algerian researcher Aziza Saadoun told Raseef22:
The depth of the crisis is tied to the Algerian character and identity, which—to a large extent—does not know the culture of diversity or difference, and it is difficult for it to accept the other.
She added that the growth of Islamic fundamentalist movements and the state’s view of Christian churches as operatives, have together contributed to the creation of this Algerian identity—the result of which has been the marginalization of minorities and the denial of even the most basic rights.


text:
After attack on LGBTI community center in Sofia, Bulgarian activists and mainstream politicians condemn right-wing extremist violence · Global Voices
Filip Stojanovski

Gloria Filipova from the Rainbow Hub was in the face on Saturday, October 30, 2021. Photo: screenshot from a Facebook video by the Rainbow Hub, used with permission.
On Saturday 30 October, a group of about ten burly men from the ultranationalist political party Bulgarian National Union – New Democracy (BNU-ND) attacked the Rainbow Hub, an LGBTI community center in Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria. The extremist group with neo-Nazi links vandalized the place, destroying furniture and equipment, while presidential candidate Boyan Rasate physically assaulted the activist Gloria Filipova.
Our office and LGBTI community center in #Sofia – Rainbow Hub, was attacked tonight during a #trans community gathering. The leader of the attack Boyan Rasate is well known for his LGBTI-phobic actions and statements, and is currently running for President in #Bulgaria (read ⬇) pic.twitter.com/StwibomFGL
— Bilitis Foundation ?? (@BilitisLGBTI) October 30, 2021
According to Nova.bg TV news, the police has started an investigation on “hooliganism,” based on the testimony of activist Gloria Filipova, who underwent medical examination right after:
Физически съм добре. Нараняването е минимално. Психически съм доста стресирана. Имахме събитие и към 17.30 ч. се почука на вратата. Едно момиче стана да отвори. Аз също отидох, за да видя кой е. Влезе група, ръководена от Боян Расате. Започнах да викам, че не може да влизат и тогава той ме удари. Започнаха да чупят всичко наоколо. Всичко продължи няколко минути. Звъннах на 112.
I am physically fine. The wounds are minimal. Psychically I am very stressed. We had an event and around  17:30 hrs someone knocked on the door. A girl went to open. I also went to see who it is. A group headed by Boyan Rasate entered. I started shouting, telling them they aren't allowed to come inside, and the he hit me. They began to ransack everything around the place. It all lasted for several minutes. I called the police over the phone.
Other eyewitnesses confirmed that suspected leader of the attack Boyan Rasate hit Filipova with a fist in the face. According to the Sofia Globe, Filipova added:
In the end, Boyan Rasate and another man remained. I had said that they had done their job and could leave, but he replied that he had not finished yet and took out a knife and cut the tires of a scooter that was here. The knife was not used against us, but there was a weapon.
Rasate stated for Nova.bg on Sunday morning that the police has not sought him by that time.
Four political parties as well as number of individual politicians condemned the attack, according to Radio Free Europe in Bulgarian.
Center-right European Parliament Member Radan Kanev stated in a Facebook post that the event, while “outrageous and disturbing,” was not unexpected, because “violence based on hatred of different sexualities, specifically gay people, is not a new problem in Bulgaria. On the contrary, it is a deepening problem that has already taken innocent victims.”
He also reiterated the its high time that crimes motivated by hatred of different sexualities be qualified as felonies within the Criminal Code.
#Neonazi attack on #RainbowHub #Sofia is as outrageous & alarming as it is expected. As expected, b/c violence based on hatred of different sexualities, specifically gay people, is not a new problem in #Bulgaria. On the contrary, it is a deepening problem, @Europarl_EN @hrw #LGBT pic.twitter.com/aweENn9Dlb
— neli salo (@NeliSalo) October 31, 2021
Monitor.bg reported that center-left political party We Continue the Change issued a communique via Facebook claiming that the attackers from “an organization of a paramilitary type” were armed, and demanded the revoking of the parliamentary immunity of their chief and swift action by the public prosecutor.
Bilitis Foundation, the founder of the Rainbow Hub, stated on Twitter that the attack comes just 10 days after a petition with All Out of more than 8,000 signatures was filed at the Ministry of Justice demanding the introduction of anti-LGBTI hate crimes into the Criminal Code. Hate crimes based on the victim's sexual orientation and gender identity are not currently recognized as a special category in Bulgaria.
On October 26, the Bulgarian Constitutional Court ruled that the ratification of the Istanbul Convention, an international human rights treaty against violence against women and domestic violence would be anti-constitutional. Balkan Insight reported that activists in Bulgaria have criticized the ruling, which said the word “gender” can only indicate biological sex.
In Bulgaria, the English term gender, in its direct transliteration (джендър), is being used as a slur, to belittle sexual minorities and gender nonconforming people. Often, the term is also used to denigrate feminists and human rights defenders.
A number of the people on Twitter calling for solidarity with Rainbow Hub also noted that one can express it through donations that will be used to rebuild and reequip the premises.
Yesterday evening an LGBTI Community Centre in Sofia was attacked by the Bulgarian National Union, with one person injured. If you’d like to support the Centre in rebuilding and continuing its important work, here’s how to donate pic.twitter.com/uaaM74YFUd
— Lucy Hunt (@lucy_hunt) October 31, 2021

author: Filip Stojanovski


text:
Caribbean negotiators should seek solutions and support at COP26 · Global Voices
Zico Cozier

Signage at the COP26 conference taking place in Glasgow, Scotland, October 31-November 12, 2021. Photo courtesy Valery Fils-Aime, used with permission.
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) of the Caribbean headed to the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) with a shared objective—to rally support for ensuring that increases in average global temperatures are limited to 1.5º Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as recommended in the Paris Agreement.
“To do less, is to put at risk our generation and the future,” stated Keith Rowley, the prime minister of one such country, Trinidad and Tobago in March this year. His remark highlights the gravity of the climate crisis for Caribbean SIDS. Warmer ocean temperatures and higher sea levels are already contributing to more frequent and destructive hurricane seasons in the region. Research has linked Hurricane Maria—a deadly Category 5 behemoth that ravaged Dominica, Saint Croix and Puerto Rico in 2018—directly to climate change.
In Trinidad and Tobago, the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to combating climate change under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), acknowledge that the country’s annual mean air temperature has warmed by almost 1º C over the past half-century, and that continuing along this trajectory would leave it more vulnerable to increased flooding. This year, Trinidad and Tobago has seen unprecedented amounts of flooding that has led to the destruction of roadways and property in communities from St. Anns in the north to Penal, towards the south.
Adding urgency to the crisis, the latest assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) points to the likelihood of more loss and damage in the near future. The report makes it clear that limiting global warming to 1.5 C would be impossible without “immediate rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” But Colin Young, Executive Director of the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC), who spoke with Global Voices via Zoom, says that the report would be the “biggest plus” that the region has at COP26: “We have been doing our part in terms of mitigation but we need the largest emitters in the world to do more.”
For context, the Caribbean is responsible for less than one per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while the G20 nations are responsible for around 80 per cent. Young referred to this as the first major priority for the region: “COP must result in global ambition that will keep the 1.5 temperature goal within reach. So that's outcome number one right now.”
Activists in the region have rallied around this message through a campaign website called “1.5 to stay alive”—its homepage greets you with various portraits of young Caribbean girls standing submerged by rising sea levels: their hands are mostly held above the water gesturing the numbers one and five. The creators, Panos Caribbean, refer to climate change as an “existential threat” and, with COP26 getting underway, have used the campaign to fervently make the case as to why this is so. The reality, however, is that the Caribbean needs to also plan for some amount of inevitable change, which is why Young listed the region’s second major priority at COP26 as securing climate finance for adaptation.
According to the UNFCCC, climate adaptation refers to adjustments in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to effects of climate change. In the Caribbean, this can take many different forms and would be specific to the unique needs of each island. For example, islands like Dominica, sitting in the hurricane belt, would need to fortify their infrastructure, whereas Trinidad and Tobago would have to consider how to protect reclaimed land from flooding and coastal erosion.
At the Copenhagen COP in 2009, richer nations promised to commit 100 billion United States dollars a year in climate finance. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), however, that promise has gone unfulfilled. Their September estimates showed that climate finance in 2019 fell short of this target by US $20 billion.
Young said there is no excuse because “even before COVID, the pace at which the finance was being delivered would have been suboptimal.” He said the time had come for developed countries to live up to their commitments and that COP26 is where they should be held to task. The third area that Young pointed out for the region is the finalisation of the Paris rulebook, which is necessary for the full implementation of the Paris Agreement. The outstanding chapter of the Paris rulebook deals with questions of transparency—how do countries report on their progress?
In a telephone interview with Global Voices, Trinidad and Tobago-based environmental consultant, Ryan Assiu, explained, “Even though parties are pledging to become carbon neutral or saying they’re going to implement certain measures, if you don’t have a proper system to transparently account for them, you can’t really tell whether you’re making it to carbon neutrality by 2050.”
COP26 negotiations began on October 31 in Glasgow, Scotland, and are scheduled to last until November 12.

author: Zico Cozier


text:
Georgians who look different: ‘Friends ask me to dress in a way that won’t get me beaten’ · Global Voices
JAM News

A screenshot from Jam News video.
This article was first published on JAM News. An edited version is republished here under a content partnership agreement.

author: JAM News


text:
North Macedonia Prime Minister Zoran Zaev resigns after defeat in local elections · Global Voices
Metamorphosis Foundation

Prime minister of North Macedonia Zoran Zaev (second from the left) and unseated former mayor of Skopje Petre Shilegov (first from the right) at post-election press conference, October 31, 2021. Photo by Meta.mk, CC BY-NC, 2.5, used with permission.
This story is based on original coverage by Meta.mk. An edited version is republished here under a content-sharing agreement between Global Voices and Metamorphosis Foundation.
Zoran Zaev, the incumbent prime minister of North Macedonia, announced his resignation from his prime ministerial post and also from the post of the president of the political party Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM) in a late night press conference, after his party's defeat in the second round of the local elections on October 30.
According to the preliminary results from State Electoral Commission website, the ruling center-left SDSM won 16 out of  80 local government units. Forty one municipalities got new mayors from the opposition right-wing populist VMRO-DPMNE. A candidate backed by them also won the seat of mayor of metropolitan area of City of Skopje, which is a special local government unit.  Government coalition partners DUI won in 10 municipalities and LDP-DOM in one. Other opposition parties won 6 other local governments, while new mayors in two municipalities ran as independents. Results are pending in three municipalities due to disputes or revoting.
Zaev had previously said we would resign if his party failed to retain the mayoralty of the capital. He also adamantly stated that early parliamentary elections are not an option. He claimed to be convinced that there are excellent working conditions for a government from the ruling coalition and also asserted that he will remain in his positions until a new parliamentary majority is formed. A few hours after the closing of the polls he said:
Let me congratulate our opponents on their victory in these elections. I accept the responsibility and I resign as a prime minister and president of SDSM and also congratulate all the progressive citizens who strived for an integrated North Macedonia.
Speaking after Zaev at the press conference, incumbent City of Skopje Mayor Petre Shilegov congratulated his opponent Danela Arsovska for her victory. She ran as “independent candidate backed by VMRO-DPMNE.” Shilegov expressed his gratitude to all the citizens and activists who gave their support, claiming that the party will remain vigilant against abuses of power as opposition at local level.
VMRO-DPMNE supporters celebrating their victory in local elections in Skopje on October 31, 2021. Photo by Meta.mk, CC BY-NC, 2.5, used with permission.
During 2021 the two parties, considered the biggest in the country, received much fewer votes than in previous election cycles, in absolute numbers. Local political analysts consider protest votes for smaller parties, abstinence and apathy stemming from disappointment, and disinformation key factors that determined the outcome.
The news of Zaev's resignation has been broadcasted by the most influential international news agencies and media around the world. He said he will remain prime minister long enough to enable a transition to a new government majority and cabinet.
International and Balkan experts, commenting on this sudden development, blame the stagnating reforms, but also the European Union (EU) for failing to deliver on its promises.
Zaev's government made painful compromises with Greece, changing the name of the country to North Macedonia in 2019 as precondition to join NATO and EU.  Since then, nationalist opposition parties portrayed him as a traitor, amplifying the dissatisfaction of the electorate with issues affecting quality of life. The country joined NATO in 2020, but then several EU members blocked EU accession for both North Macedonia and Albania.
Florian Bieber, Professor of South East European History and Politics and director of the Centre for South East European Studies at the University of Graz, wrote that SDSM’s defeat is partly self-inflicted and partly the result of the EU’s failure to deliver on the EU integration process, due to the dispute with Bulgaria.
Good news: Resigning without necessity is a rare step of political courage and shows that taking political responsibility is possible. Bad news: opposition unreconstructed, nationalist & pro-Orban. No clear successor & will a new PM have momentum to re-start serious reforms? 2/2
— Florian Bieber (@fbieber) October 31, 2021
VMRO-DPMNE is allied with authoritarian Hungarian president Orban, who has provided sanctuary for former strongman Nikola Gruevski, who was convicted for corruption. The main opposition party in North Macedonia is the same nationalist structure that conducted state capture until 2017. The issue of a successor to continue Zaev's reforms remains open.
Macedonian human rights expert Mirjana Najchevska, a professor at the Institute of Sociological, Political and Juridical Research in Skopje, had this to say on Twitter:
МОЖНИ СЦЕНАРИЈА
Со оставката на Премиерот, според нашиот Устав во оставка е целата Влада.
Оставката се поднесува до Собранието кое ја усвојува.
И тука се можни повеќе излезни решенија.
— Мирјана Најчевска (@ibogovitelicno) November 1, 2021
POSSIBLE SCENARIOS
With the resignation of the prime minister, according to the Constitution, the whole government is in resignation. The resignation letter is submitted to the parliament, which votes on it. There are several possible exit solutions of this situation.
Given the legal framework, Najchevska outlined the following possible scenarios:
(1) The first solution is for the current government majority coalition to receive a new mandate from the president of North Macedonia, after which the SDSM or its coalition partners can nominate a new mandate.
(2) The second option is to form a new government coalition, with new majority in the parliament, while (3) the third outcome is that any of the coalition in the parliament to start a procedure for dissolving the parliament and calling premature parliamentary elections.
(4) The last remaining option is that all the political parties in the parliament agree to form an expert government that will conclude the current government’s term.
Jasmin Mujanović, Bosnian political scientist working in the USA also commented on Twitter:
Zoran Zaev’s departure marks end of a brief era of political progress in W Balkans. I wrote extensively about the significance of the Colorful Revolution; warned in my book that if “democratic revolts” of mid-2010s failed, restoration of autocracy would lead to renewed conflicts.
— Jasmin Mujanović (@JasminMuj) October 31, 2021
Carl Bildt, the former Swedish diplomat who is a specialist for the Balkans commented that Zaev’s resignation is the least desirable development at the moment in terms of EU’ s enlargement in the Balkans.
Unlikely to be top global news, but a political crisis in ?? is the least we need now in order to get the critical ?? enlargement agenda in the Balkans moving. https://t.co/uBcXveIN01
— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) October 31, 2021

author: Metamorphosis Foundation


text:
What can we expect from Russia at COP26? · Global Voices
openDemocracy Russia

Wildfires in Siberia, June 2021. Image: NASA Earth Observatory, Public domain.
This article by Natalie Sauer originally appeared on Open Democracy on October 28, 2021. It is republished as part of a content-sharing partnership and has been edited to fit the GV style.
Russia has been seen as a climate pariah by the international community for some years. It was one of the last countries to ratify the 2015 Paris Agreement – not until September 2019, at the UN’s Climate Action Summit.
At the time, few would have expected to see the ambitious declarations made by Russia this year.
In April, Vladimir Putin asked his cabinet to produce a plan to cut carbon emissions below the level of the EU by 2050. In July, the Russian president signed legislation that requires the country’s largest companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions — a move hailed as the first step towards carbon regulation.
In September, a two-year decarbonisation strategy budget was launched. Finally, two weeks ago, Putin stunned observers by committing Russia to a target of net zero by 2060 — the same as China and, most recently, Saudi Arabia.
“This target means we can now head to Glasgow without shame,” Alexey Kokorin, climate lead at WWF Russia, told the Russian business daily Kommersant. Indeed, some Russian commentators have expressed surprise at Putin’s change in rhetoric. The Russian president once used to laugh off climate change as an opportunity to boost crop yields, but now acknowledges the “grave challenges” it poses to the country.
“Climate change denial is over,” opined prominent foreign policy commentator Dmitry Trenin, who described the 2060 target as a sign of a “sea change” in the Kremlin’s thinking.
Russia is hardly on the cusp of an ecological revolution, but could the world’s fourth-largest greenhouse gas emitter be finally falling in line with global decarbonisation trends? And might this herald a change in attitude at COP26?
Russia could aim to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 79 percent from current levels by 2050, according to Russian business media Kommersant, which has seen the draft of the new net-zero strategy.
Under the strategy’s “intense scenario” of Russian climate change policy, the country’s emissions are set to peak by 2030, rising only by 0.6 percent. By comparison, Russia’s previous plan would have seen emissions increase through 2050 and not drop to net zero for another 80 years, until 2100.
But expert opinion is cautious about how far Russia’s green turn really goes.
Bobo Lo, an associate research fellow at the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), says that “Fossil fuels are Russia’s great comparative advantage, and it is unthinkable to me that it would voluntarily give this up.” “Saying is one thing, doing is quite another!” he adds.
Lo pointed out that Russia’s 2035 Energy Strategy currently forecasts a 50 percent increase in gas production to 2035, and the 2035 Coal Production Strategy also envisages a surge in coal production.
“How is any of this compatible with a net-zero commitment? It isn’t, but then again 2060 is a long way away,” Lo says. “By that time, these commitments will have been overtaken by events.”
Russian energy minister Nikolay Shulginov told the Russian Energy Week forum two weeks ago that the 2060 net-zero target meant that the country would have to diversify its energy mix and revise the 2035 Energy Strategy.
But rather than a genuine ecological transition, Lo reads Russia’s new commitment as an attempt to “be seen as an upstanding member of the international community”, noting that it’s important for the Russian leadership not to be “an outlier at a time when there is broad consensus on the threat global warming poses”.
“It’s easy to pluck figures out of the air and pretend they will be realised,” he says.
Under draft plans, Russia’s electricity power generation would shift from coal-based power plants to gas turbines, nuclear, hydroelectric and renewable power facilities. Oil and gas exports are due to fall by 2% a year in real terms from 2030. More contentiously, the Russian government has also set out to raise the carbon absorption of ecosystems by 220% via forest conservation methods  – a task that some experts doubt is feasible in light of the country’s increasing wildfire problem.
Maria Pastukhova, a senior policy adviser at European think tank E3G, told openDemocracy that a genuine shift is happening in Russia’s climate policy. “No, it is not a mere facade and will definitely affect the existing energy strategy,” she says.
Pastukhova predicts that Russia will shift towards nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric energy, with a greater emphasis on energy efficiency and an accelerated transition from coal to gas in the power sectors.
However, she advises caution on one point: Russia’s 2060 pledge does not account for exported emissions – and the country’s fossil fuel industry is currently eyeing the Asian market. At the very event where Putin unveiled the net-zero target, the Russian energy ministry also agreed to boost exports of coking coal to India by up to 40 million tonnes per year.
Vasily Yablokov, head of energy at Greenpeace Russia, agreed that much work lies ahead to adapt Russia’s strategies to climate goals. “The risk remains that Russia’s fossil fuel industry lobby will not give up state support overnight or even in the medium term,” he says.
“They will argue, among other things, that [cutting state support] will lead to increased social problems and even a failure to meet the UN’s sustainable development goals, where, for example, goal eight aims to promote economic growth,” Yablokov notes.
At best, Russia has tended to keep a low profile at climate negotiations. At worst, it has teamed up with other petrostates to obstruct climate action.
At UN climate talks only three years ago, Russia allied with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the US to tone down references to the IPCC’s landmark 1.5°C report, which suggested that limiting temperature rises to 1.5°C could help avoid some of the worst effects of climate change.
The country has also systematically dragged its feet to endorse climate treaties, from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (ratified in 2004) to the 2015 Paris Agreement (ratified in 2019).
Rarer instances when Russia has taken a progressive stance have required incentives – such as the prospect of burnishing its ‘great power’ status or embarrassing a foe. For example, it made ratification of the Kyoto Protocol conditional on Russia’s membership of the World Trade Organization. Likewise, at an Arctic Council meeting in 2019, Russia joined other states in recognising climate change as a threat to the region – while the Trump White House refused to do so.
COP26 is billed as the most important COP since Paris in 2015, with the rules of the Paris Agreement – the ‘Paris rulebook’, for short – and climate finance for developing countries among the most pressing negotiations.
For some, Putin’s recent announcement that he would not attend the summit already suggests that Russia’s green metamorphosis is lacking.
“You can read [Putin’s absence] in two ways,” IFRI’s Lo says. “One: the Russian delegation announces some radical initiative which Putin, being absent, feels no obligation to stick to. Two: they go with the 2060 goal, which will either be unenforceable and/or irrelevant. Either way, the Russian government is completely committed to maximising its comparative advantages in fossil fuels.”
Pashtukhova, from E3G, begs to differ. She believes Putin’s absence is partly because President Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, is not attending: “I’m certain, had [Xi] attended, Putin would have been there as well.”
However, the analyst also sees the president’s non-attendance as part of a Kremlin strategy to pressure the West into lifting sanctions that are damaging the green transition and the Russian economy. Russia’s majority state-owned gas company Gazprom, for example, is still under sanctions over Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support for the war in Ukraine.
Indeed, Russian climate envoy Ruslan Edelgeriyev has signalled that the issue of sanctions is paramount. Pastukhova points out that the Russian state bank VEB is responsible for drafting the country’s green taxonomy (a classification system for sustainable development) and is currently under sanctions.
“No discussion about [Russia’s] green finance can avoid the need to lift sanctions – at least on the ‘green’ part of finance,” she says.
It’s the same for the Global Methane Pledge set to be launched at Glasgow by the EU and U.S. Although Russia is one of the world’s largest methane emitters – not least because of its creaking pipeline infrastructure – it has already indicated that it will not join the pledge until its gas and oil industry can access technology and finance that it is currently barred from.
As for the Paris rulebook, the subject of deadlines for climate pledge updates is crucial. Vulnerable countries are pushing for goals to be revised every five years from 2031, arguing that shorter time spans encourage greater ambition. However, at the last COP, in Madrid in 2019, Russia argued for a ten-year timeframe because it better suited its national planning.
Delegates will also discuss the UN’s carbon offset scheme, the so-called Sustainable Development Mechanism. This allows countries to fund greenhouse gas emissions-reducing projects in other countries and then claim the saved emissions as part of their own efforts to honour climate pledges.
Here, Russia is expected to attempt to monetise its vast forests. In a submission in October, the country appears to be pushing to extend the crediting periods for forestry activities, in a bid to attract private investment in forest management. It is also pushing for lax carbon accounting rules.
Finally, according to Yablokov and Pastukhova, it is unlikely that Russia will deliver on climate finance for developing countries. COP26 president Alok Sharma has described climate finance as “an absolute priority”. He hopes to make developed countries abide by their 2009 pledge to give vulnerable countries 100 billion US dollars a year to help them adapt to the impacts of a warming planet.
But referring to the West’s failed promises – such as climate finance – Russian climate envoy Ruslan Edelgeriyev recently stressed that “Russia will not take unequal steps.”

author: openDemocracy Russia


text:
In Georgia, the ruling Dream Party wins in local election runoff vote · Global Voices
Arzu Geybullayeva

Leader of United National Movement addressing protesters at a rally on October 31. A screenshot from the Radio Liberty Georgia Service video report.
The ruling Georgian Dream party claimed victory on October 30 as polls closed in Georgia's runoff vote across the nation's five largest cities — Tbilisi, Batumi, Kutaisi, Poti, and Rustavi. The local elections were held in an environment of protracted political crisis since October 2020, when opposition groups contested the ruling Georgian Dream Party's victory in the parliamentary elections. Preliminary results announced on October 31, by Central Election Committee showed the ruling Georgian Dream party secured 19 out of 20 mayoral seats. The opposition parties have made allegations of rigged ballots.
Following the announcement of election results, opposition parties protested outside the parliament in the capital, Tbilisi. Addressing the crowd of opposition supporters, the leader of the United National Movement, Nika Melia, said, “The government thinks in vain that it won yesterday. The Georgian people, will win very soon.” Melia, also called for mass demonstrations on November 7 “different from all previous demonstrations”. “The whole world will watch the large scale demonstration, that will be held on Freedom Square on Rustaveli Avenue on Sunday [November 7],” vowed the leader of the opposition party.
The demonstration was then rescheduled to November 6.
The first round of elections, held on October 2, was criticized by the EU Delegation, as well as the joint observation mission from the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) observers. In a statement issued by the Delegation of the European Union in coordination with the embassies of the Member States, the group concluded that although the elections were “generally administered,” they were also “characterized by hardened polarization.”
In a new statement issued on October 31, Carl Hartzell, the EU Ambassador to Georgia, said, “while elections were generally well administered,” the statement criticized the ruling government for “an escalation of negative rhetoric, persistent allegations of intimidation and pressure on voters and sharp imbalances in resources, which benefited the ruling party and tilted the playing field.”
Albert Jónsson, who heads the ODIHR election observation mission, said, “While these elections were well organised and transparent, there were a number of shortcomings that became evident in the run-up to the second round as the tone of the political debate became increasingly confrontational and claims of pressure and intimidation continued.”
The US Embassy to Georgia also issued a statement commenting on violence saying they were “troubled by credible reports of violence against election observers and the media during both rounds of the election.”
The Ministry of the Interior has launched several investigations into incidents of violence observed on October 30.
The rerun vote, took place at a time, when Georgia's former president, Mikheil Saakashvili awaits trial behind bars. The former political leader has been on hunger strike since October 1. Despite reports of his health deteriorating, the ruling government refuses to move him to a medical facility for treatment. “I want you to know that the prolongation of my life is entirely tied to the choice that you are going to make tomorrow,” Saakashvili wrote in a letter sent through his lawyer ahead of the vote according to OC Media.
Two days ahead of the vote, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili reportedly said, the former president “had the right to commit suicide,” in a late-night televised interview. In the same interview, the Prime Minister also alleged that the opposition has made plans to assassinate several opposition leaders.
Although the opposition plans to contest results in some of the precincts, in courts, the focus now appears to be on the streets wrote journalist Joshua Kuchera in his Eurasianet piece, with several scheduled rallies across the country.


text:
Roundup of Shia figures continues in Azerbaijan · Global Voices
OC Media

“Bibi-Heybat Mosque, Baku, Azerbaijan” by Yasser Alaa Mobarak, AFIAP, AICS is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
This article by Ismi Aghayev was first published on OC Media. An edited version is republished here under a content partnership agreement.
On October 25, Ahliman Rustamov, a theologian and former prayer leader of the Haji Javad Mosque in Baku, was detained by the State Security Services. Rustamov is the latest Shia figure targeted by the authorities in an apparent roundup of prominent Shia figures in the country. Rustamov was released after questioning.
In an interview with OC Media, Rustamov's son, Gasim Rustamov, said the Security Service agents confiscated  “some 15 religious books” that belonged to his father. The family does not know why Ahliman Rustamov was detained in the first place.
Local experts say Rustamov is the latest victim of growing tensions with Iran. While both countries have majority Shia populations, the secular authorities in Azerbaijan have previously been suspicious of religious figures.
“We have witnessed this from time to time. Both during the Soviet era and after independence, there have been such arrests,” Zardusht Alizade, a political analyst and former opposition politician, told Turan News Agency. “I do not think that a few theologians will stage a coup in Azerbaijan. Of course, this image is being created and society is already accustomed to it. If there was a threat to the security of the state, why didn't [the authorities] take security measures in advance?” It is an image the authorities are creating, Alizade said in an interview.
On October 19, Sardar Babayev, Jalal Shafiyev, Gadir Mammadov, and Tamkin Jafarov, all members of the Union of Clergy, an organization representing Shia scholars and religious figures in Azerbaijan, were detained. Relatives said that police had confiscated phones and laptops during the arrests. Shafiyev, Mammadov, and Jafarov were released without charges on October 26, while Sardar Babayev remained in custody and was charged with high treason, facing a life sentence if found guilty. Babayev was sentenced to three years in prison in 2017 on charges of violating the requirements for conducting religious ceremonies. The imam of the Juma Mosque in Baku's Masalli district, Babayev, was released in February 2020. Authorities in Azerbaijan made no statements on Babayev's arrest and charges.
The same day, members of the Union of Clergy were detained, another prominent Shia cleric and theologian, Ilgar Ibrahimoglu, was detained. Ibrahimoglu, who serves as the chair of the Centre for the Defense of Freedom of Religion and Conscience, was released several hours after questioning.
Civil society activist Anar Mammadli said, “it was a dangerous attempt” to connect Shia community leaders to Iran's Special Security apparatus. In a Facebook post, Mammadli said:
With this logic, it is then possible to associate Sunni community leaders with the Special Security forces of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and Qatar. And Christian groups to Western countries. It is the responsibility of the authorities to change this propaganda. Both the government and affiliated media, must stay away from politicizing religious clerics with critical opinions and from portraying them as agents. This tendency creates unpleasant perspectives for the country's future and has nothing to do with secular governance.”

author: OC Media


text:
Thai protesters demand the abolition of royal defamation law · Global Voices
Prachatai

People took over the road that leads to Ratchaprasong Intersection. Photo and caption by Prachatai.
The original version of this article was published by Prachatai, an independent news site in Thailand, and was edited and republished by Global Voices under a content-sharing agreement.
A protest was held by the Ratsadon group at Bangkok's Ratchaprasong Intersection on October 31, 2021, to demand that the royal defamation law be abolished and those held for violating it be freed. Ratsadon has been organizing pro-democracy protests since 2020.
The march took place around 3 pm and concluded at 8:30 pm. Representatives of legal watchdog iLaw were at the scene collecting signatures for a petition demanding that parliament abolish Section 112 of the criminal code, which stipulates that anyone who defames, insults, or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent, or the Regent, will be punished.
At the event's opening, Pol Col Kritsana Pattanacharoen, deputy spokesperson of the Royal Thai Police Office, stated the protest violated both the emergency decree and the Contagious Disease Act. He added that police planned to monitor the event and collect evidence so that they could later bring charges against anyone breaking the law.
There is a rally booth seeking signatures to submit the petition to the parliament to abolish Section 112. #ม็อบ31ตุลา64 #whatshappeninginthailand pic.twitter.com/82c9fdXxd1
— Prachatai English (@prachatai_en) October 31, 2021
The protesters took turns presenting critiques of the royal defamation law.
Yingcheep Atchanont. Photo by Prachatai.
Yingcheep Atchanont, an iLaw spokesperson, noted growing frustration among media members, politicians, bureaucrats, and the public with a law that left them unable to talk about the impact of monarchy-related issues on their lives.
We believe that it would be better to have a concise law that lets people understand what can be said and what cannot, a law that leaves us confident that if what we said say is true, reasonable, and of benefit to the public and nation, we can speak freely and never be accused of wrongdoing.
We believe that it would be better if individuals who defame and damage others are tried under a just law by impartial court officers who decide cases on the basis of facts and law, irrespective of the political atmosphere,
We believe, when people are in fundamental disagreement over the country’s problems, that it is better to put everything on the table and talk. Let parties to the dispute put forward their arguments and debate the evidence. Let people everywhere listen and participate in deciding what to do.
We believe it would be better to live in a society where people are not imprisoned for simply expressing their political opinions, for demanding a better society, and for asserting that the people are the true owners of power in the country.
Supitcha Chailom. Photo by Prachatai.
Supitcha Chailom, a 19-year-old student activist, charged under Section 112, also gave a speech at Ratchaprasong Intersection. She said Section 112 is being used by the state to harass people and stoke fear among citizens to keep them from criticizing the monarchy and calling for reform. Since 2020, people have been charged for questioning the Kingdom's vaccination rollout, mocking the royal dog, and even reciting part of a poem.
The more you use [Section 112], the more likely it is that the thing you wanted to protect will come crumbling down.
Phromsorn Viradhammajari from Ratsadon Mutelu group also gave a speech, noting that although the monarchy is a state organization that receives a national budget, there is no public oversight of the appointed royal officers or royal projects.
He said feudalists have been using the monarchy and Section 112 to oppress people by claiming that those who rally for democratic reform are trying to uproot the royal institution.
Actually, we love the monarchy. If we didn’t love it, we wouldn’t want to reform it to be under the constitution. It is because we love it that [we] ask for reform. Because if it’s not reformed, there could be a revolution.
At the end of the protest, Panussaya Sitthijirawattanakul, a student activist from Thammasat University, read a statement from the Ratsadon group making two main demands: granting bail to all detained political activists and abolishing Section 112.
The ten demands to reform the monarchy proposed on 10 August 2020 were meant to fundamentally address political deadlocks in Thailand and raise questions about cults of personality. These demands were made to see Thailand become a constitutional monarchy, a characteristic of which is that the throne is under the law and subject to bona fide public scrutiny like any other institution in a democratic system…
We, the People’s Party (Khana Ratsadon) for the Repeal of #112, will work with all groups, all sectors, all organisations and all individuals in society to repeal the law and assure the right to bail for political prisoners. We have a dream that Thai society will be prosperous under a genuine democracy, under liberté, égalité, and fraternité.

author: Prachatai


text:
‘My people, from above and afar’: Havana in photos · Global Voices
Periodismo de Barrio

‘My people seen from above and afar.’ Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.
Text and photos by Juan-Sí González for Periodismo de Barrio, republished by Global Voices.
After several years, I returned to Havana in 2020. We rented a house in Old Havana and invited all the family to spend a week together. I had also been invited by INSTAR (Instituto Internacional de Artivismo Hannah Arendt) to give an audiovisual presentation on the work carried out by the Art-De (arts and rights) group in the 80s and on my previous work while in exile. I arrived with my wife and daughter on January 31.
During the days of my short stay, I took a series of photos; these photos are marked as a BEFORE and an AFTER.
Those photos taken BEFORE are close up. They belong to those first days when I could go out in the mornings, wandering the streets of Havana and breathing in my old city. During those days I followed the same routine, documenting it in order to better recognize and find my way around the city streets. I recorded the inside and outside of buildings that awakened my memory, trying to create an updated testimony of places that felt familiar to me.
However, on February 5 everything changed. On the way home from my walk, I went for a coffee in the Hotel Plaza. Suddenly, two people came over and sat down at either side of my table; they were plainclothes agents. They told me that they had come to warn me about my presentation at INSTAR. One of them pulled out a pack of H. Upmann cigars from his pocket and placed it on the table next to my Marlboros. Passing a cigar to the other agent then lighting his own, he said that they had been watching me photograph rubbish dumps and crappy areas of the city. “Why? What for?” he asked me.
Then, after a long and unpleasant exchange, they left.
The next day, just hours before my presentation, I knew that I could not go outside under any circumstances, until the day of my departure from Cuba.
The AFTER photos were taken from afar, and the people in the streets are shown from above. These photos belong to the last few days of my stay, after being banned from going out and taking photos in public. These photos were taken in secret, from inside, from the balcony, and from the rooftop of that unforgettable house.
A long waiting time. Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.
Building façade, walking around the city. Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.
Interior, walking around the city. Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.
Interior, walking around the city. Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.
Interior, walking around the city. Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.
Interior, a long waiting time. Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.
My people seen from above and afar. Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.
My people seen from above and afar. Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.
My people seen from above and afar. Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.
My people seen from above and afar. Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.
My people seen from above and afar. Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.
My people seen from above and afar. Photo: Juan-Sí González, from the series In Door/Close Up, 2020.

author: Periodismo de Barrio