Vatican opens archives on history’s most controversial pope

 February 29, 2020 Agence France-Presse


The Vatican unseals the archives of history’s most contentious popes on Monday, potentially shedding light on why Pius XII stayed silent during the extermination of six million Jews in the Holocaust.

Two hundred researchers have already requested access to the mountain of documents, made available after an inventory that took more than 14 years for Holy See archivists to complete.

Award-winning German religious historian Hubert Wolf will be in Rome on Monday, armed with six assistants and two years of funding to start exploring documents from the “private secretariat” of the late pope.

Wolf, a specialist on the relationship of Pius XII with the Nazis, is anxious to discover the notes of the his 70 ambassadors — the pontiff’s eyes and ears during his time as head of the Catholic Church between 1939 and his death in 1958.

There should also be records of urgent appeals for help from Jewish organisations, as well as his communications with the late US President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The unsealed archives additionally cover a post-World War II era in which writers were censored and some priests hounded for suspected communist sympathies.

The Vatican first published the essentials covering the Holocaust four decades ago, an 11 volume work compiled by Jesuits.=

But some crucial pieces are still missing, including the pope’s replies to notes and letters — for example, those about Nazi horrors.
==========
The Jesuits already published “documents the pope received about the concentration camps, but we never got to see his replies,” Wolf said in an interview.

“Either they do not exist, or they are in the Vatican,” he told AFP.




Historians have already examined the 12 German years of Eugenio Pacelli, the future pope’s real name which he used while posted there as the Holy See ambassador in 1917-1929

There, he witnessed the rise of Nazism, then returned to Rome to become the right-hand man of his predecessor Pius XI, elected in 1922.




Past archives have revealed exchanges in which he was alerted about the extermination of European Jews once he himself became the pope.

“There is no doubt that the pope was aware of the murder of Jews,” Wolf said.

“What really interests us is when he learned about it for the first time, and when he believed that information.”




On December 24, 1942, Pius XII delivered one of history’s most debated Christmas radio messages.

Buried in its long text was a reference to “hundreds of thousands of people who, without any fault of their own and sometimes for the sole reason of their nationality or race, were doomed to death or gradual extermination”.

Was his message — delivered in Italian and aired just once, and which never explicitly mentioned either the Jews or Nazis — heard and understood by German Catholics?

“The only ones who heard it were the Nazis,” said Wolf, noting that the radio waves were scrambled and that the pope could have spoken German — if he had really wanted to reach the German faithful.

“After the war, Pius XII told a British ambassador: ‘I was very clear.’ And the ambassador will say in reply: ‘I did not understand you’,” the historian said.

Those who rise to the pope’s defence note that Pius XII was a former diplomat who was trained in prudence, anxious to remain neutral in time of war, and concerned about being able to shield Catholics from the unfolding devastation.

He simply could not be any more explicit, Pius XII’s supporters say. Historians estimate the Church hid around 4,000 Jews in its Roman institutions during the war.

“Quite a few Jews were saved in convents,” David Kertzer, an American historian who won the Pulitzer Prize for a book about the era, told AFP.

“But why were they murdered by people viewing themselves as Christians?”

For Kertzer, the reasons behind the “silence of the pope” are key.

“He wasn’t happy about mass murder. He seemed upset. He knew by 1941,” said Kertzer.

And yet “never uttered the word Jew”.

Wolf, the German historian, added that Pius XII “remained very withdrawn after the war, saying nothing about the Holocaust”.

He also never recognised the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

“Why?” Wolf asks.

How Christian nationalism is driving American politics

February 29, 2020 By Paul Rosenberg, Salon

LONG READ

In early 2018, after a year of confusion over why Donald Trump had been elected, Clemson sociologist Andrew Whitehead and two colleagues provided compelling evidence — which I wrote about here — that “voting for Trump was, at least for many Americans, a symbolic defense of the United States’ perceived Christian heritage.” That is, it represented “Christian nationalism,” even when controlling for other popular explanations such as “economic dissatisfaction, sexism, anti-black prejudice, anti-Muslim refugee attitudes, and anti-immigrant sentiment.” The puzzle of why white evangelicals voted for Trump so overwhelmingly turned out to have a simple explanation: It wasn’t their religion that he championed — Trump is conspicuously not a person of faith — but rather its place in society.

Now, Whitehead and one of those colleagues, University of Oklahoma sociologist Samuel Perry, have a new book taking their research approach much further: “Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States.” Donald Trump doesn’t figure as a central subject in the book, but then, he doesn’t have to. By exploring and explaining the power of Christian nationalism, Whitehead and Perry provide one of the best perspectives possible on the 2020 race, and the larger forces that will continue to polarize America for some time to come.

Significantly, the authors explore Christian nationalism’s influence on society as a whole — not just on those who embrace it, but on those across the whole spectrum, from adherents to opponents — while not forgetting how extreme its animating vision is. They cite Corey Robin’s “The Reactionary Mind” and Jason Stanley’s “How Fascism Works,” for example, in making the point that while “Christian nationalism seeks to preserve or reinstitute boundaries in the public sphere,” its believers are “most desperate” to influence “Americans’ private worlds,” as is true of “all reactionary movements.”
This is both an extremely timely book and one that’s likely to shape our self-understanding as a nation for generations to come. I recently interviewed Andrew Whitehead by phone. This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.

Your book is about “Christian nationalism.” Let’s start with explaining what you mean by that.

When we talk about Christian nationalism, we identify it as a cultural framework that is all about trying to advocate for a fusion between Christianity, as they define it, and American civic life. This Christianity is something more than just orthodox Christian belief — it contains and overlaps with a number of other things. It operates like a signal to those that hear it, to a certain population, to say “people like us,” which is generally white, native-born, culturally Christian. So it intertwines not only with narratives about the Christian heritage of the United States, but also different traditions and symbols and value systems, and really is a fusion of these identities, put together to create what they see as the “ideal” America.

As you note in your introduction, there’s a large literature on Christian nationalism, including another book coming out next week, Katherine Stewart’s “The Power Worshippers.” What’s distinctive and different about your approach, both in terms of methodology and purpose?

What we’re doing that really hasn’t been done before is quantifying and empirically defining Christian nationalism. “The Power Worshippers” by Katherine Stewart is amazing, and really a great journalistic look at who’s pulling the levers, and who these power worshipers are. But what we do is we gather data from thousands of Americans through surveys, and then we interview them. What we’re trying to do is empirically show this ideology and cultural framework of Christian nationalism: How does it affect and influence the views of all Americans, their beliefs, their values, their behaviors? There really hasn’t been a sustained, empirical examination of this cultural framework and that’s what our book does.

In your introduction you lay out three main arguments. First, you argue that “understanding Christian nationalism, its content and its consequences, is essential for understanding much of the polarization in American popular discourse.” Your analysis doesn’t just look at supporters of Christian nationalism, but those with a broad range of perspectives, which you characterize in four broad groups. I’d like to ask about each of them, starting with those you call “Ambassadors.” What is distinctive or characteristic of them?

Ambassadors are those Americans who most strongly embrace Christian nationalism. We ask a series of questions of Americans and then we combine their responses across the six questions, and we are able to measure the strength with which they either embrace or reject Christian nationalism. Ambassadors are those who strongly agree with a series of questions like, “Do you believe that the United States or the federal government should advocate Christian values?” Or, “Should we allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces?” The more Americans agree with those, they score highly on our scale, and those Americans we call Ambassadors. So they are the ones that would want to see religious symbols in public spaces, they would want to see the government advocate for Christian values, declare the U.S. a Christian nation. They believe that the success of the United States is part of God’s plan, so they would be those who most strongly embrace this idea of the U.S. as a Christian nation and would want to see Christianity privileged in the public sphere.

On the other extreme are those you call “Rejecters.” What’s distinctive or characteristic of them?

Rejecters are those Americans who completely oppose and repudiate any notion of a close relationship between Christianity and American civil society. They’re in some ways a mirror image of Ambassadors, where for them to have a strong civil society, or pluralistic democracy, we should not be privileging any religion in the public sphere. They wouldn’t necessarily say that religion shouldn’t be a part of American life, but that in the halls of power one religion shouldn’t have an upper hand over another. So they wouldn’t want to see Christianity privileged in that sense.

One thing we want to make clear is that these aren’t just non-religious Americans. We show that there are evangelical Protestants who are Rejecters, and we interview them in the book. There are other Americans who are religious, who reject the desire to see Christianity privileged in the public sphere. Now, many Rejecters are pretty non-religious, but not all. So what we’re looking at isn’t just a religious/non-religious divide. It really is a divide about the role that they think Christianity should play in public life. Rejecters would say that while religion is fine to be part of people’s lives, we wouldn’t want to see Christianity privileged in some way.

In between these extremes there are two groups. Those called “Accommodators” are closer to the Ambassadors, but not the same. What’s distinctive or characteristic of them?

Accommodators lean towards accepting this idea of a U.S. civil society that embraces or in some ways might privilege Christianity. So their support is undeniable, but it’s not comprehensive. They would maybe be more equivocal about whether there should be certain religious symbols in public spaces. They might say that Christianity has been important to the history of the U.S., and that it generally is a good thing. But when you ask if other religious groups should be able to also integrate or be a part of it, they will be more open to that, whereas Ambassadors would say that this is a Christian nation, and if you don’t like it you should leave. Accommodators accommodate the “Christian nation” narrative and Christian nationalism, but they wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to other religious groups at least being able to live and operate here. So they are supportive of it, but it isn’t as comprehensive as Ambassadors.

The other in-between group, called “Resisters,” are closer to Rejecters but, again, not the same.

Resisters are more of a mirror image of Accommodators, where they are uncomfortable with the idea of a Christian nation, but not wholly opposed. So they lean towards opposition. They might say that Christianity played an important role in the founding of the United States, but they’re uncomfortable with any idea of trying to privilege Christianity in the public sphere. We find that there are a number of Resisters who are Christians, who think that Christianity can play a positive role in society, but it shouldn’t be held up over any other religious group — that Christians and other religious groups should be able to work alongside one another. So compared to Rejecters, who might say no one religion should have the upper hand, Resisters might still see a positive role that Christianity can play, but they wouldn’t want to see that formalized in any form by government.

You also make the point that these groups cut across all other demographics, although unevenly. One of the most notable findings is that the percentage of Rejecters rises with each succeeding generation, while the number of Ambassadors falls, pointing to a seeming waning of Christian nationalist influence. But there are contrary factors at work as well. Could you explain?

We do find, in other research, that Americans will respond to historical events, and might embrace Christianity as integral to American identity much more strongly. One example is when 9/11 happened. In the late ’90s, a certain number of Americans would say that being Christian was important to being truly American, but after 9/11, when asked that question, a much larger percentage of Americans said that to be truly American you need to be a Christian. So they were responding in some sense to the 9/11 attack on America, trying to identify “Who are we, and what are we all about?” A lot of the rhetoric surrounding that revolved around religion. But we found that 10 years after that event, those levels decreased, back actually below the 1996 levels.

Throughout history Christian nationalism has been a part of our cultural context, but it does wax and wane. Around the Cold War, trying again to identify who we are as Americans, Christianity was put on our coins — “In God we trust” — in this kind of push. Kevin Kruse shows in his book “One Nation Under God” how, in response to the New Deal and fears of creeping socialism, people pushed this idea that we’re a Christian nation. With Jerry Falwell and others, the Moral Majority were responding to the civil rights movement and the gender and sexuality movements of the ’60s and ’70s.

We see this current iteration of Christian nationalism responding to that. If there’s uneasiness or if we’re trying to define who we are, Christianity becomes kind of an easy go-to, to say, “This is what we’ve always been about.” With recent demographic shifts in U.S. society, that is another example, where Donald Trump and others would say that we’re a Christian nation and this is what we’re all about, and others would be willing to hear and embrace that. Even as there are fewer Ambassadors today, Christian nationalism is still a very powerful cultural framework and ideology that will help them define themselves against the outside. It still is a really strong explanatory tool to understand why people see and think the way they do about politics, their own lives and whatever is happening in the world today.

Your second main argument is that “to understand Christian nationalism, it must be examined on its own terms. Christian nationalism is necessarily part of a complex web of ideologies.” What are the main ideological connections that are most salient, politically and statistically?

People usually will try to say, “Is it racism or authoritarianism that really explains these effects?” What we find is that while Christian nationalism does overlap with these different ideologies, like racism or authoritarianism, it has an independent effect. While there are aspects of Christian nationalism where people do want to see a highly ordered society, it isn’t just that desire. There is something about wanting to see Christianity privileged in the public sphere that is an independent influence on how they see the world, or might view the criminal justice system or anything else. And the same with racism, where Christian nationalism is associated with generally prejudiced views towards nonwhite groups. It isn’t just that there’s racism. There’s something about this idea of seeing Christianity privileged in the public sphere that tells us something over and above the other ideologies. So while they’re related, they aren’t one and the same.

It seems like Christian nationalism is something broader than these ideologies it is connected to.

I think it is. I think it tells us something about the nature of this desire to see religion and especially Christianity privileged in the public sphere. It tells us something more about where that came from and why that’s important, and helps to explain why Americans might believe one way versus another.

Finally, your third argument is that “Christian nationalism is not ‘Christianity’ or even ‘religion’ properly speaking,” and indeed that “Christian nationalism often influences Americans’ opinions and behaviors in the exact opposite direction than traditional religious commitment does.” In fact, as one table in your book shows, in virtually all areas of social policy — everything except personal fidelity to religion — the influences are at odds.

It’s a recurring theme we see throughout our book. When we look at different hot-button political wedge issues in the U.S., or we look at views toward nonwhite groups or even non-Christian groups, we find that Christian nationalism encourages people generally to think and believe one way, while once we take that level of Christian nationalism into account, individual Americans who are more religious will actually be moving in the opposite direction.

One example is fear of Muslims. We ask a number of questions about, “Do you feel threatened by Muslims physically?” Or, “Do you think they hold moral values that are less than yours?” The way I explain it is that if you could take a carbon copy of me and the only thing you change — increase or decrease — is my Christian nationalism, then I will be more fearful of Muslims as you increase that. But if you took a carbon copy of me, and my level of Christian nationalism stayed the same level, and all you increased or decreased was my religious practice — as you increase my religious practice, I would actually feel less threatened by Muslims. So these things aren’t one and the same. While many Ambassadors and Accommodators are religious, it isn’t necessarily their religiosity that’s causing them to view immigrants or Muslims or nonwhite minorities this way. It’s their Christian nationalism.

The one topic where we find religious practice and increasing Christian nationalism work similarly is when we talk about gender, homosexuality or transgender rights. We do find that more religious people tend to be less willing to be open toward gay marriage, as an example, even when we account for Christian nationalism.

I’d like you to talk more about that. Why do those views translate from Christian nationalism to religious practice, whereas when it comes to attitudes towards Muslims or people of other races, the same is not true?

Christian nationalism is really focused on creating boundaries between “us” and “them.” This idea of true American identity is white, Protestant, culturally Christian, native-born. So that’s why we see religious practice and Christian nationalism work differently in that sense. But when we’re talking about sexuality, what we see is that for those that are religiously active they’re still seeing and believing that there should be some sort of ordering within gender and sexuality that is in line with what they see as traditional Christian beliefs. So Christian nationalism in the end works in the same direction with religious practice.

We see that same thing in our interviews. Those who were strongly Christian nationalist, who were Ambassadors, they would oppose same-sex marriage really along the lines of trying to protect this Christian nation. They would see it as a threat to America’s Christian nation. But when we talk to Americans who are very religious, but who reject or resist Christian nationalism, they might be opposed to gay marriage, but it isn’t that they want to see it outlawed at the federal level. They would think that it’s against the dictates of their Christian tradition.

I want to ask about two specific examples you discuss, which I think most observers don’t have a good handle on, but make perfect sense in your analysis. The first is a lack of sympathy for black victims of police violence, even in the face of video evidence. What are the reasons behind this lack of sympathy?

What it comes down to is that Christian nationalism is fundamentally about preserving or returning to a mythic society where there are traditional hierarchical relationships — between white and black, or even men and women. The authority structures that are in place are instituted by God, so any claims by minorities — in this case, racial minorities — that there are inequalities, to Christian nationalists and to Ambassadors, they would see that as disingenuous.

What we find is that when it comes to maintaining law and order, Christian nationalists are enthusiastic about that, so they’re basically biased toward seeing and defending fairness in that force that’s used against different people. They’re more likely to think that police treat blacks the same as whites, or that police officers shoot blacks more often because they are inherently more violent. They’re less likely to believe there are inequalities in policing, because to them that authority structure is put in place by God. So that is a little bit more about how Christian nationalism can uphold or encourage white supremacy, or specifically inequality in the criminal justice system.

The second example is attitudes towards guns, epitomized by the Florida legislature after the Parkland shooting, when they responded by overwhelmingly passing a bill requiring the prominent placement of “In God we trust” in all Florida schools. That bill is part of the Christian nationalist agenda pushed by Project Blitz. How does this make sense in terms of Christian nationalism? What’s the logic involved?

For Christian nationalism, for Ambassadors, they would say the real issue with our country when it comes to violence or anything else is that individuals are not Christian or not following the Christian God. So if we’re able, as a country, to encourage Christianity in the public sphere, that will heal a lot of the fracture in our nation, or these issues that make people want to inflict violence on others. They don’t see where larger structural changes like limiting access to guns might change it, because they say — and you hear this over and over — that if somebody couldn’t use a gun, they would use something else. But we can’t just outlaw evil, it is always going to be with us, violence is always going to be with us. So the only way to reduce violence is through encouraging Christianity overall.

Another reason they would oppose gun control is because they view the Constitution — and, by default, the Second Amendment — as ordained by the Christian God. So, to oppose the Second Amendment right to bear arms, they would say, is to oppose what God has instituted for this nation. The only way to heal our country is through encouraging Christianity, not limiting access to guns.

One thing that stood out for me was that Rejecters stand alone in seeing Christian nationalism as a threat — not spelled out as such, but in terms of those who support it. This seems problematic to me, if understandable. Could you talk about that?

We show that Rejecters are the only ones that are more likely to feel that threat or to be afraid of conservative Christians. The other groups are no different from one another. Even Resisters might see some room for Christianity to play a role in the public sphere. What is important to underscore is that Christian nationalism as a framework isn’t just equal to conservative Christians, or religious people, but is something different, and we find that it’s present across both the religious and non-religious groups and socio-demographic categories. So Americans in a lot of different places will embrace this, to different levels, and it can have profound impacts on how they might view policing of religious minorities or immigration or other issues.

Finally, what’s the most important question I didn’t ask? And what’s the answer?

A point I would want to make is that Christian nationalism has serious implications for two areas. One is American civil society, about upholding a pluralistic democracy. Christian nationalism, we find over and over again, doesn’t encourage an ability to compromise or to work together across differences or to find a common way that we can all agree on. For them it’s more and more about trying to defend a particular version of religion in the public sphere. So it’s really difficult to have a pluralistic democracy, which should be founded on compromise, when increasingly Christian nationalists desire their way or nothing. So that has deep implications for our democracy.

It also has serious implications for the American Christian church. With Christian nationalism in many ways subsuming common Christian traditions and symbols to its own ends, that really can go against the dictates of orthodox Christianity, like loving your enemy or your neighbors, or equality across all races and ethnicities. To the extent people are interested in or are trying to live out the dictates of the Christian scriptures, in many ways Christian nationalism is wholly opposed to them.

So for those who are interested in defending a pluralistic, democratic society, non-religious Americans can find common cause with those Christians who reject Christian nationalism, because they are focused on trying to ensure religious freedom for all or to live in harmony with their neighbors. One example is the Baptist Joint Committee [For Religious Liberty] or Christians Against Christian Nationalism. Non-religious or secular Americans who don’t want to see Christianity privileged in the public sphere can in some cases seek common cause with those who may be devoted to the Christian faith, but reject Christian nationalism.

Coronavirus time bomb: America’s uninsured and brutal work culture


Published February 29, 2020 By Agence France-Presse

Like many Americans, bartender Danjale Williams is worried about the growing threat of the novel coronavirus.

What makes the 22-year-old in Washington even more frightened: The thought of medical bills she just can’t afford, as one of almost 27.5 million people in the United States who don’t have health insurance.

“I definitely would second guess before going to the doctor, because the doctor’s bill is crazy,” she said. “If it did come down to that, I don’t have enough savings to keep me healthy.”

As the virus begins spreading in the west of the country, where the first death was reported Saturday, public health experts warned the US has several characteristics unique among wealthy nations that make it vulnerable.

Defend democracy. Click to invest in courageous progressive journalism today.

These include a large and growing population without medical insurance, the 11 million or so undocumented migrants afraid to come into contact with authorities, and a culture of “powering through” when sick for fear of losing one’s job.

“These are all things that can perpetuate the spread of a virus,” said Brandon Brown, an epidemiologist at UC Riverside.

The number of Americans without health insurance began falling from a high of 46.7 million in 2010 following the passage of Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act), but has risen again over the past two years.

The current figure is about 8.5 percent of the population.

Public health experts often worry about the destructive potential of a pandemic in poorer parts of the world like sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia.

These poverty-plagued regions have hospitals that are ill-equipped to stop the spread of infectious diseases, or to adequately care for patients needing breathing assistance, which the most severe cases of COVID-19 require.

By contrast, the US has some of the world’s best hospitals and medical staff, but those not lucky enough to have good insurance through their employer, and not poor enough to qualify for state insurance, often opt out of the system entirely.

A routine doctor’s visit can run into hundreds of dollars for those without coverage.

“I think that it’s possible if this has the sustained spread, that might highlight some of those health care disparities that we already know about and are trying to work on, but haven’t figured out a way to solve,” said Brian Garibaldi, the medical director of Johns Hopkins Hospital’s biocontainment unit.

That’s not to say uninsured people have no recourse if they fall seriously ill.

US law requires that people who are truly sick get the care they need, regardless of ability to pay.

Abigail Hansmeyer, a Minnesota resident who along with her husband is uninsured, said that if she did fall ill, “we may seek out the emergency room for treatment.”

But being treated doesn’t mean the visit was free and the uninsured can be lumped with huge bills after.

“So we have to very carefully consider costs in every situation,” the 29-year-old said.

One of the key messages the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has put out about the coronavirus is to stay home if you have mild respiratory symptoms, except to go to the doctor once you have called in and if they think you need to.

“But a lot of people, depending on their jobs, their position and their privilege, are not able to do that,” said Brown.

The US is alone among advanced countries in not offering any federally mandated paid sick leave.

Though private companies offer an average of eight days per year, only 30 percent of the lowest paid workers are able to earn sick days, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

For many of these people, missing even a day’s work can make a painful financial dent.

An October 2019 nationwide survey of 2,800 workers by the accounting firm Robert Half found that 57 percent sometimes go to work while sick and 33 percent always go when sick.

As the global death toll from the virus approaches 3,000 and the US braces for a wider outbreak, the race is on to develop vaccines and treatments.

Current timeline estimates for the leading vaccine candidate are 12-18 months, but will it be affordable for all? That question was put to Health Secretary Alex Azar in Congress last week.

His response: “We would want to ensure that we work to make it affordable, but we can’t control that price because we need the private sector to invest.”

Ed Silverman, a columnist for industry news site Pharmalot, panned the comment as “outrageous.”

“No one said profits are verboten,” he wrote. “But should we let some Americans who may contract the coronavirus die because the price is out of reach?”

---30---

Walkouts as Roman Polanski wins best director at French Oscars

AFP / Bertrand GUAY

Adele Haenel (R), who has become a hero of the #MeToo 

movement in France, stormed out when Roman Polanski 

won best director at the French Oscars

Roman Polanski won best director for "An Officer and a Spy" at a fractious ceremony for the French Oscars, the Cesars, that ended in walkouts and recrimination in Paris early Saturday.

The entire French academy had been forced to resign earlier this month amid fury that the veteran -- wanted in the US for the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1977 -- had topped the list of nominations.

Protesters chanting "Lock up Polanski!" tried to storm the theatre where the ceremony was being held before being pushed back by police firing tear gas.

And France's Culture Minister Franck Riester had warned that giving the maker of "Rosemary's Baby" a Cesar would be "symbolically bad given the stance we must take against sexual and sexist violence".

AFP / Lucas BARIOULET

Protesters chanting 'Lock up Polanski!' tried to storm the 

theatre where the ceremony was being held


But Polanski won two awards, best adapted screenplay and best director -- with the latter prompting Adele Haenel, who was nominated for best actress for "Portrait of a Lady on Fire", to storm out, crying "Shame!"

Haenel has become a hero of the #MeToo movement in France after accusing the director of her first film, Christophe Ruggia, of sexually harassing her when she was only 12.

Polanski's film also picked up best costume design.

- 'Public lynching' -

"Distinguishing Polanski is spitting in the face of all victims," Haenel had said in the run-up to the Cesars.

"It means raping women isn't that bad."

AFP/File / Lou BENOIST

Polanski on the red carpet at the ville US Film Festival in

 northern France last September

Polanski, 86, and the entire team of his historical drama had boycotted the ceremony, fearing a "public lynching".

"An Officer and a Spy" is based on the Dreyfus affair which divided France in the late 19th century when a Jewish army officer was wrongly prosecuted for spying.

"What place can there be in such deplorable conditions for a film about the defence of truth, the fight for justice, (against) blind hate and anti-Semitism?" the director told AFP.

Polanski's epic, which won two top prizes at the Venice film festival last year, was in the running in 12 categories at the Cesars.

AFP / Bertrand GUAY

But the big winner on the night was the Oscar-nominated "Les Miserables", set in one of France's deprived and restive suburbs.

It took best film and three other prizes including the audience award.

It's Mali-born director Ladj Ly made an appeal for unity on a highly fraught night, saying "our enemy is not the other, but poverty".

- Poisonous atmosphere -

"Papicha", a touching story of Algerian women fighting for their freedom by Mounia Meddour, also fared well, winning both best first film and best female newcomer for actress Lyna Khoudri.

With the French film industry at war with itself over Polanski, Hollywood star Brad Pitt also snubbed the event having reportedly been offered an honorary award.

AFP / BERTRAND GUAY

Posters with a play on words combining the word rape in French 

with the name of Polish-French filmmaker Roman Polanski, 

and reading "Violanski, the Cesars of shame" plastered on 

 the headquarters of the French film academy ahead of its 'Cesar' award

The French press had dubbed the event "The Cesars of Anguish", with Le Parisien daily mocking up a movie poster of Hitchcock's "Vertigo".

And the ceremony lived up to its billing.

The poisonous atmosphere had already worsened on the eve of the awards when 30 film figures from minority backgrounds lashed the lip service they claimed the industry plays to inclusion.

- Casual racism -

In blistering open letter they said black, North African and Asian-origin performers are mostly confined to stereotypical bit parts in French films.

On the night, one of the signatories of the letter, actress Aissa Maiga, delivering a scathing critique of casual racism in the industry as she presented the prize for best newcomer, including skewering presenter Florence Foresti for once donning blackface.

But it was the absent figure of Polanski which caused most unease, with a presenter only daring to mumble his name when he opened the envelope for his first win.

AFP / Bertrand GUAY

'Papicha', a touching story of Algerian women fighting for

 their freedom by Mounia Meddour, also fared well


The publicity campaign for Polanski's movie was halted last year after another woman, photographer Valentine Monnier, claimed that she had also been raped by the director in 1975.

But that did not stop it becoming a box office hit in France.

Polanski had told AFP that he had decided to stay away from the ceremony to protect his family and his team from abuse.

"The activists brandish the figure of 12 women who I am supposed to have molested half a century ago," he said.

"These fantasies of sick minds are treated as established fact," he complained.

Polanski snubs French Oscars fearing 'lynching'

AFP/File / Thomas SAMSONFrench-Polish director Roman

 Polanski is wanted in the US for the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1977

Controversial film director Roman Polanski told AFP on Thursday he will not attend the French Oscars because he fears a "public lynching" by feminist activists.

The veteran is at the centre of a storm of protest after his new film about the Dreyfus affair, "An Officer and a Spy", topped the list of nominations for the Cesar awards, which will be presented in Paris on Friday night.

France's equality minister and feminists were outraged at his 12 nominations, including for best film, given that Polanski is still wanted in the United States for the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

"We know how this evening will unfold already," Polanski said in a statement to AFP as posters appeared at the theatre that will host the ceremony condemning him as a rapist and sex criminal.

"Activists are already threatening me with a public lynching, with some saying they are going to protest outside," the 87-year-old added.

"What place can there be in such deplorable conditions for a film about the defence of truth, the fight for justice, blind hate and anti-Semitism?"

Earlier this week, French star Adele Haenel, who last year accused the director of her first film of sexually harassing her when she was only 12, blasted the Cesars for honouring Polanski.

"Distinguishing Polanski is spitting in the face of all victims," she said. "It means raping women isn't that bad."

The entire board of the French film academy which awards the Cesars was forced to resign early this month after Polanski's movie became the favourite to lift the top prizes.

- 'Sick minds' -

Academy head Alain Terzian had justified its choice by saying that the academy "should not take moral positions" about giving awards.

Despite protests outside some cinemas, the movie -- about Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer wrongly persecuted by the French army at the turn of the 20th century -- has been a French box office hit.

However, even before it opened the publicity campaign for the film was halted after French photographer Valentine Monnier claimed that she had also been raped by the director in 1975.

AFP/File / Christophe ARCHAMBAULT

The publicity campaign for the film was halted after a French 

photographer claimed that she had also been raped by the director in 1975

Monnier, an 18-year-old model and actress at the time, said Polanski tried to give her a pill as he beat her "into submission" at his Swiss chalet.

Polanski "absolutely denied" the allegations, pouring scorn on her story.

The director told AFP that he had taken the decision not to attend the Cesars ceremony to protect his team and "my family, my wife and my children, who have been subject to insults and affronts as part of a kind of collective responsibility that comes from another age".

"The activists brandish the figure of 12 women who I am supposed to have molested half a century ago," he added.

"These fantasies of sick minds are treated as established fact -- a lie repeated 1,000 times becomes a truth."

- No fix -

Polanski said that he would not submit himself to a trial by media so "that the irrational triumphs yet again".

And he hit out at those who claimed that "our 12 nominations were a present from the academy management... brushing aside the secret vote of 4,313 professionals who alone decide the nominations as well as the more than 1.5 million people who have gone to see the film" in France.

The director caused uproar at the Venice film festival last year -- where his film won two prizes -- by likening his hounding by the media to the anti-Semitic persecution Dreyfus suffered.

He later blamed the disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein for his woes.

He said Weinstein had tried to brand him a "child rapist" to stop him winning an Oscar in 2003 for "The Pianist".

"Portrait Of A Lady On Fire" Actor Adèle Haenel Stormed Out Of An Awards Ceremony After Roman Polanski Won

"Bravo, pedophelia!" the actor yelled after walking out of the French César awards. Polanski is a convicted child rapist.

Salvador Hernandez BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on February 29, 2020

 Abaca Press / Sipa USA via AP

Actor Adèle Haenel walked out in protest of the César awards — France's equivalent of the Oscars — after Roman Polanski won best director for his film An Officer And A Spy.

"Bravo, pedophelia!" Haenel, who starred in the film Portrait Of A Lady On Fire, was then heard saying in the lobby of the Salle Pleyel, where the awards show was held.

Polanski was convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl but fled the US in 1978 before he could be sentenced. He has been living in exile since.



Mona Eltahawy@monaeltahawy

“Bravo, pedophilia!” Adèle Haenel, star of Portrait of a Lady on Fire, and the film’s director Céline Sciamma walking out after child rapist Roman #Polanski won the best director award at the Césars, #France’s equivalent to the Oscars. h/t @alucarda01:59 PM - 29 Feb 2020
Reply Retweet Favorite

The director has continued working during his exile, but his nomination sparked outrage in France's film industry, leading to the 21 members of the César Academy to resign and the replacement of its president, Variety reported.

Several other people could be seen walking out of the 45th annual awards ceremony Friday night after Polanski won, including Portrait Of A Lady On Fire director Celine Sciamma.


CANAL+@canalplus

A l'annonce du César de la Meilleure Réalisation pour Roman Polanski ("J'accuse"), Adèle Haenel quitte la salle. Le meilleur des #César2020 > https://t.co/ipnVwouBeV11:22 PM - 28 Feb 2020
Reply Retweet Favorite

Outside the concert hall, demonstrators protested Polanski's nomination, clashing with police.

Neither Polanski nor the crew of the film attended the ceremony. Alain Goldman, who produced An Officer And A Spy, said the cast and team of the film would not attend the show because of, "an escalation of inappropriate and violent language and behavior," according to Variety.

Polanski previously said he would not attend the awards show to avoid a "public lynching."


Abaca Press / Sipa USA via AP

Haenel has been a leading advocate for what has become France's own #MeToo movement. In November, she accused French director, Christophe Ruggia, of sexually harassing her for years beginning when she was 12 years old

The accusation prompted French authorities to launch an investigation. Ruggia now faces sexual aggression charges.

Despite the protests and the controversy prompted by his film, Polanski still faced some support from colleagues in the industry.

French actress Brigitte Bardot posted a handwritten note of support for the director.

"I judge him on his talent and not on his private life!" she wrote. "I regret never having shot with him!"

Haenel was not the only celebrity to protest Polanski's win. French comedian and host of the Césars, Florence Foresti, who opened the ceremony by calling out "predators," did not return to the stage after Polanski's win.

Shortly after the ceremony, she posted a single word to her Instagram story: "Disgusted."


Screenshot

Salvador Hernandez is a reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in Los Angeles.

Brain freeze: Russian firm offers path to immortality for a fee
Dmitriy Turlyun

SERGIYEV POSAD, Russia (Reuters) - When Alexei Voronenkov’s 70-year-old mother passed away, he paid to have her brain frozen and stored in the hope breakthroughs in science will one day be able to bring her back to life.

It is one of 71 brains and human cadavers - which Russian company KrioRus calls its “patients” - floating in liquid nitrogen in one of several metres-tall vats in a corrugated metal shed outside Moscow.

They are stored at -196 degrees Celsius (-320.8°F) with the aim of protecting them against deterioration, although there is currently no evidence science will be able to revive the dead.

“I did this because we were very close and I think it is the only chance for us to meet in the future,” said Voronenkov who intends to undergo the procedure, known as cryonics, when he dies.

The head of the Russian Academy of Sciences’s Pseudoscience Commission, Evgeny Alexandrov, described cryonics as “an exclusively commercial undertaking that does not have any scientific basis”, in comments to the Izvestia newspaper.

It is “a fantasy speculating on people’s hopes of resurrection from the dead and dreams of eternal life”, the newspaper quoted him as saying.

Valeriya Udalova, KrioRus’s director who got her dog frozen when it died in 2008, said it is likely that humankind will develop the technology to revive dead people in the future, but that there is no guarantee of such technology.

KrioRus says hundreds of potential clients from nearly 20 countries have signed up for its after-death service.

It costs $36,000 for a whole body and $15,000 for the brain alone for Russians, who earn average monthly salaries of $760, according to official statistics. Prices are slightly higher for non-Russians.

The company says it is the only one in Russia and the surrounding region. Set up in 2005, it has at least two competitors in the United States, where the practice dates back further.

Voronenkov said he set his hopes on science. “I hope one day it reaches a level when we can produce artificial bodies and organs to create an artificial body where my mother’s brain can be integrated.”

KrioRus’ director Udalova argues that those paying to have dying relatives’ remains preserved are showing how much they love them.

“They try to bring hope,” she said. “What can we do for our dying relatives or the ones that we love? A nice burial, a photo album,” she said. “They go further, proving their love even more.”

Reporting by Dmitriy Turlyun; Writing by To

Abortion rights face stern new test at conservative U.S. Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court this week gets its first chance to consider new curbs on abortion rights with President Donald Trump’s two conservative appointees on the bench as it examines the legality of a Louisiana law that could force two of the state’s three clinics that perform the procedure to shut down.

The court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, is scheduled on Wednesday to hear arguments in an appeal by Shreveport-based abortion provider Hope Medical Group for Women seeking to invalidate the law. Chief Justice John Roberts may be pivotal in deciding the outcome, with Trump’s appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch also in the spotlight.

The clinic sued to block the 2014 law, which requires that doctors who perform abortions have a difficult-to-obtain arrangement called “admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the abortion clinic. A federal appeals court ruled against the clinic and upheld the law.

The Supreme Court struck down a similar Texas requirement in 2016 when conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired in 2018, joined the four liberal justices to defend abortion rights. Trump has tightened the conservative grip on the court with his 2018 appointment of Kavanaugh, who replaced Kennedy, and his 2017 appointment of Gorsuch.

In their prior stints as federal appellate judges, neither Kavanaugh nor Kennedy ruled directly on abortion rights. But Trump promised during the 2016 presidential race to appoint justices who would overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion and legalized it nationwide.

The Louisiana case will test the willingness of the court to uphold Republican-backed abortion restrictions being pursued in numerous conservative states.

Roberts, a conservative, cast the deciding vote when the court last year on a 5-4 vote blocked Louisiana’s law from going into effect while the litigation over its legality continued.

When the Supreme Court in 1992 reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, it prohibited laws that placed an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion. In the Texas case, Roberts concluded that an admitting privileges requirement did not represent an undue burden, but he was in the minority in the ruling.


Known to be concerned about the court’s institutional reputation and integrity, Roberts may be wary about reversing such a recent precedent even though he was one of the dissenters in the 2016 case.

“Everyone is looking to the chief justice to see what he is going to do,” said Nicole Saharsky, a lawyer who regularly argues at the Supreme Court.

Baton Rouge-based U.S. District Judge John deGravelles cited the undue burden precedent when he struck down Louisiana’s law in 2016, prompting the state to appeal to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 5th Circuit upheld the law despite the 2016 precedent, concluding there was no evidence any Louisiana clinic would close due to the admitting privileges requirement.

Graphic - U.S. state abortion laws: here

‘OPEN DEFIANCE’

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights legal advocacy group representing the Hope clinic, said the justices must know that Louisiana’s law was in “open defiance” of their 2016 precedent.

“The real issue for the court in this case is: are they going to follow their own precedent from four years ago?” Northup said.


Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill, who is defending the law, said “big differences” between the Texas and Louisiana laws mean the justices do not need to treat them the same way.

“The state has a significant and compelling interest in showing there’s a safe environment. We can’t rely on them to do it,” Murrill said, referring to the clinics.

The Hope clinic has said implementation of the law would force it and another facility in Baton Rouge to shut, leaving a single clinic, located in New Orleans, for the entire state of about 4.6 million people. The state disputes that finding.

The Hope clinic, in a windowless brick building in Shreveport often with anti-abortion protesters outside, draws women not just from northwestern Louisiana but also eastern Texas and southern Arkansas.

Abortion remains one of the most divisive social issues in the United States, with Christian conservatives among those most opposed to it. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Louisiana’s law could lead other states to pass similar measures.

Abortion rights advocates have argued that restrictions such as admitting privileges are meant to limit access to abortion not protect women’s health as proponents say.

Anti-abortion activists are hoping the Supreme Court, with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and perhaps additional Trump appointees on the bench if he wins re-election on Nov. 3, will scale back or even overturn Roe v. Wade.

Amanda Nottingham, an activist with the Louisiana Right to Life advocacy group that supports Louisiana’s law, said the court is “far more favorable now than it was a few years ago.”


“Obviously our goal is to see the end of abortion,” Nottingham added.

Louisiana’s law, Nottingham said, “makes a statement to the rest of the nation that Louisiana is pro-life and we are here to protect women, and we want the highest level of care and safety for them.”

[For a graphic on U.S. state abortion laws, see tmsnrt.rs/2WZuiVP ]

Lawmakers criticize Pentagon for shifting money to Mexico border wall

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday criticized the Pentagon’s decision to shift nearly $4 billion from the defense budget to pay for a wall on the border with Mexico, saying that it circumvented Congress’ authority and could affect the military’s ability to reprogram funds in the future.

Earlier this month the Pentagon said it would be shifting $3.8 billion from the military budget to pay for the wall, a central promise of President Donald Trump’s campaign for the White House four years ago and bid this year for a second term.

The decision was met with bipartisan concern from lawmakers during a congressional hearing on the budget with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley.

“You are heading for a major brawl with this committee,” Representative John Garamendi, a Democrat, said during the hearing.

The Trump administration has vowed to build at least 400 miles (640 km) of wall along the border by November 2020, when Americans will vote for president. In his 2016 campaign, Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. The Mexican government has consistently refused to do so.

“I support walls but I am deeply concerned about where we’re headed with the constitutional issue, about Congress’s role in national defense and whether that is being overridden,” Representative Mac Thornberry, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said during the hearing.

Congressman Adam Smith, chairman of the committee, said the decision was “very, very damaging” and undercut the Pentagon’s argument that it needed resources.

Last year lawmakers expressed similar concern about the Pentagon shifting money but have done little to actually stop it.

Trump’s hard-line immigration policies, particularly for immigrants who come across the southern border with Mexico, have been a signature of his political campaign and first term in the White House.

In a letter dated Tuesday, Smith and Thornberry said that they denied the Pentagon’s request to shift money, underscoring the concern about using the defense budget to pay for the wall.

“The steps taken in this reprogramming put the Department at risk to lose the flexibility Congress has historically granted to effectively manage the resources provided,” the letter added.

Trafigura forms venture with Phillips 66 for deepwater Texas oil port

Julia Payne

LONDON (Reuters) - Global commodities trader Trafigura said on Friday it had formed a joint venture with U.S. refiner Phillips 66 (PSX.N) to build a major deepwater port in Texas capable of handling supertankers, ditching its own competing project.
\
The Bluewater Texas Terminal, to be located 21 nautical miles east of the entrance to Corpus Christi port, will have two single point mooring buoys that can load Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs), each capable of carrying about 2 million barrels of oil.

Geneva-based Trafigura, the biggest U.S. crude exporter handling about 600,000 bpd, said it had withdrawn its Texas Gulf Terminals project submitted to the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) in July 2018.

The United States became a crude exporter in early 2016 after a decades-long ban was lifted but infrastructure has lagged behind the country’s sky-rocketing shale production.

The United States is now the world’s biggest crude producer at 13 million barrels per day (bpd) with exports averaging about 3.4 million bpd for the last four weeks, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Severe pipeline bottlenecks out of the Permian basin, the biggest in the United States, have improved with the start of three major pipes last year but export terminals capable of handling supertankers are still in short supply.

A flurry of port projects have been proposed to fix the gap.

Phillips 66, the fourth largest U.S. refiner, first proposed Bluewater terminal in July. At the time, at least eight other projects had already been announced.

A final investment decision is expected to be made this year, the statement said. Once built, the terminal will be capable of loading tankers at a rate of between 40,000 and 80,000 barrels per hour or about 16 VLCCs per month.

U.S. maritime officials suspended Phillips 66’s application for a U.S. Gulf Coast deepwater export terminal, seeking additional information in November.

“By easing infrastructure barriers, the Bluewater Texas Terminals project will help the Permian region produce and export more crude oil, grow the U.S. economy and support Texas jobs,” said Corey Prologo, director of oil trading North America for Trafigura.

CORONA BEER NOT VIRUS

A survey says 38% of drinkers won't touch Corona because of epidemic fear. Corona says despite that 'misinformation,' sales are strong.
Áine Cain

The coronavirus is in no way linked to the popular beer brand. 

Victor Ruiz Garcia / Reuters


The marketing-research firm YouGov estimates that Corona Extra beer's image has taken a hit thanks to the coronavirus.

For its part, the beer brand's parent company disputes the idea that the epidemic is a major drain.

"Sales of Corona remain strong, and we appreciate the continued support of Corona drinkers," a spokesperson for Constellation Brands told Business Insider.
There is no link between the coronavirus and the beer brand.

CORONA (CORVID-19) VIRUS

Corona — Latin for "crown" — is one of the most popular beer brands, and its labels are aptly adorned with a golden crown.

But the link between the word "corona" and a global epidemic has led to questions about whether or not Corona is in for a branding nightmare. The coronavirus, which causes the disease COVID-19, has killed at least 2,900 people around the world since it originated in China in December. Its name was derived from the crown shape its viral particles form.

Constellation Brands, which has the exclusive license to distribute Corona Extra in the US, has unequivocally said that concerns that shoppers are ditching the beer because of fears over the illness are misleading.

"There's a good amount of misinformation out there that doesn't match the reality of the business or consumer sentiment," a Constellation spokesperson told Business Insider. "Sales of Corona remain strong, and we appreciate the continued support of Corona drinkers."

But some studies have raised concerns about the health of the Corona brand. The public-relations agency 5WPR surveyed 737 adult US consumers about Corona and found 38% said they "would not buy Corona under any circumstances." A total of 16% said they were "confused about whether Corona beer is related to the coronavirus."


The market-research firm YouGov calculates "buzz" scores for brands based on an average daily sample size of 357 respondents with an opinion on a brand. The firm also breaks down "purchase intent" for different products and brands based on an average daily sample size of 2,110 participants.

YouGov found that Corona beer's buzz score dropped from 75 at the start of 2020, around when news of the coronavirus first began to spread, to around 51 in February. YouGov said the beer brand's additional drop regarding "purchase intent" could also be attributed to it being "closely associated with beach holidays."

And in a case of unfortunate timing, Corona just released a hard-seltzer campaign based on the slogan "coming ashore soon" — which, given the spread of the coronavirus from China to 55 countries around the globe, landed with a thud on social media.

But for its part, Constellation Brands has maintained that it trusts consumers not to link the epidemic to its beer brand.

"We believe, by and large, that consumers understand there's no linkage between the virus and our business," Maggie Bowman, a representative for Constellation Brands, told Business Insider in January.

Corona beer maker says U.S. sales remain strong despite virus outbreak

(Reuters) - Corona beer maker Constellation Brands Inc (STZ.N) said on Friday sales of its Corona Extra beer remained strong in the United States in the four weeks to Feb. 16, amid the rapid global spread of the coronavirus.

The Modelo Especial beer maker also said all units supporting its beer business are seeing positive sales trends for the brand thus far in 2020 despite claims about the impact of the coronavirus on its business.

There have been a few media reports inaccurately claiming sales of the beer were being impacted by the virus, a Constellation spokesman said.

“We’ve seen no impact to our people, facilities or operations and our business continues to perform very well,” Chief Executive Officer Bill Newlands said in a statement.

Newlands added the company does not have much exposure to international markets such as China that have been most impacted by the outbreak.

The epidemic has killed over 2,700 and infected at least 80,000 people, most of them in China.


Reporting by Praveen Paramasivam in Bengaluru; Editing by Shailesh Kuber

Harley-Davidson looks for new leadership to end its sales struggle

Rajesh Kumar Singh
(Reuters) - Harley-Davidson Inc (HOG.N) on Friday named a board member hailed for turning around the Puma brand’s near-bankrupt business as its interim chief as the motorcycle maker gropes for an effective strategy to woo young customers and revive sales.

Jochen Zeitz was asked to take over after Chief Executive Officer Matthew Levatich stepped down following the Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based company’s worst sales performance in at least 16 years.

Harley-Davidson said Zeitz will serve as interim CEO until an external search firm helps find a new chief executive.

Michael Uhlarik, founder of consultancy Motorcycle Global, said Levatich’s exit was expected. He said Harley was likely to give Zeitz a long run as he has “proven turnaround” skills.

Zeitz is well known for transforming the loss-making Puma in the 1990s into one of the world’s top three sports brands.

“It is not about the next quarter or earnings per share,” Uhlarik said. “They will have to build a long-term, multi-year strategy.”

Harley has failed for years to increase sales in the United States, its top market, which accounts for more than half of its motorcycles sold. As its tattooed, baby-boomer consumer base ages, the Milwaukee-based company is finding it challenging to attract new customers.


Levatich, who took the company’s reins in May 2015, bet on new launches, including of battery-powered bikes, to turn around the company’s fortunes in the domestic market.

The results, however, remained elusive.

Harley’s 2019 U.S. bike sales were the lowest in at least 16 years. Falling sales in the past 12 quarters have forced the company to limit production of its bikes to prevent price discount pressure and protect profit.

In 2019, Harley’s bike shipment volume in the United States was the lowest in at least two decades. Global shipments were the lowest since 2010.

With no sales revival in sight, investors were becoming restless.

Since Levatich took the helm, Harley's shares have fallen 46%. By comparison, the S&P 500 Index .SPX has gained 40%.

Falling sales have had made Wall Street speculate whether the company, which symbolized the counterculture movement of the 1960s, would seek refuge in a buyout or turn private to rework its product lines and branding without the pressure from shareholders to shield its profit margins.

Last month, Levatich tried to parry that question by expressing confidence in the current strategy. But he also acknowledged that the challenges facing Harley were “significant” as its heavy and expensive bikes were competing for “people’s scarce time, people’s scarce funding and commitment.”

Levatich will assist with the transition through the end of March, the company said.

On Friday, Harley’s shares closed down 2.2% at $30.47.