Basic Income and Pandemic Preparedness

As we think about building societies that can be ready for pandemics and resilient to shocks, basic income needs to be part of the picture. The insecurity and hardship caused by the economic fallout of the COVID-19 crisis have prompted calls for an emergency basic income. The proposal could prove vital for people in many different situations: out of work, on reduced hours, or at-risk working in unsafe conditions. While it is unlikely to join the support announced by governments in the immediate future, the argument for a permanent, universal basic income grows stronger.

Winston Churchill is often credited for insisting that one should never let a good crisis go to waste. While the COVID-19 pandemic understandably forces our attention on the immediate here-and-now, it is opportune to also reflect on how our current predicament will affect our social relations and structures going forward. Areas of life that long seemed untouchable are suddenly open to questioning as the weaknesses and inequalities in the current systems are thrust to the forefront. In particular, insecurity contributes to the pressures many people are facing, undermining attempts to slow the spread of the disease due to the financial necessity of staying at work.

At the start of May, 88 countries around the world have announced 130 cash transfer programmes as part of the pandemic response, representing almost a doubling of pre-COVID levels. Most of the schemes are temporary, with the average duration being 3 months. Around a quarter of the programmes offer only a one-off transfer. Predictably, these programmes are heavily targeted at existing workers and affluence-tested and important coverage gaps remain. One immediate effect of the social and economic fallout of the global pandemic response is a sudden boost in civic, media and political support for what is most commonly called an emergency basic income (EBI). Whether calls from the First Minister of Scotland for the UK to devolve fiscal powers for the country to deliver the policy, pan-European petitions for the idea, or even the media excitement for the Spanish government’s minimum income proposal (not quite a basic income), it is clear that the idea has moved to the centre of policy debate across Europe.

Emergency basic income: flawed but still vital

The idea is simple enough. At a time when a significant portion of the workforce is forced to stay at home and individuals and families, as well as small businesses, are suffering economic hardship, government assistance should directly address the most urgent problem – loss of income. EBI is such an instrument: it offers immediate cash assistance (no delays or lags due to eligibility checks), it targets those most vulnerable to the economic crisis (even a universal payment has the greatest impact on the most disadvantaged), and it boosts pandemic solidarity by offering a burden-sharing mechanism that compensates those who have lost work or business opportunities and those essential workers who are continuing to service us all at considerable personal risk. A critical advantage of the proposal is that it would cover not merely those working in standard employment but also offer urgent income support to the self-employed, the precariously employed, and those with care responsibilities – paradoxically in many cases now deemed “essential workers”.

There is a need to think about the policy responses that promote social and economic resilience and pandemic preparedness. 

The EBI proposal has several drawbacks, however. The first is that it is essentially a temporary measure, meant to cover the period of severe economic fallout provoked by the lockdown measures. The assumption is that EBI would be a short-term response in the order of several months. But there remains serious uncertainty as to how long the economic fallout will last; economists predict COVID-19 will lead us into the most severe economic crisis since the 1930s and so the impact, especially on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our society, may extend years beyond the time frame initially envisaged. This uncertainty undermines the boost to security that an EBI should bring – the temptation for governments to limit support to short-term measures reduces the belief that long-term support will be in place when most needed. In addition, as the economy settles back into whatever the “new normal” will be, the lingering effects will be felt very differently by different individuals and groups. Some may find their lives restored to something resembling their previous quality, but many will face continued hardship and face a cliff edge as soon as the support dries up.

A second drawback is that current calls for an EBI face both practical and political hurdles at a time when immediate remedies are required as a matter of urgency. The political hurdles are obvious and familiar to anyone who has advocated for basic income in pre-pandemic times. Even at a time when workers are effectively forced to reduce hours or give up their jobs, the politicians’ knee-jerk response to unconditional support is to baulk at giving out “money for nothing” and instead insist on relying on existing programmes, irrespective of how fit for purpose they are in current crisis conditions. Practical hurdles that impede the immediate implementation of an EBI exist as well. In many countries, ensuring every individual ends up on a register entitling them to this support is easier said than done, especially in a situation when bureaucratic capability is under severe stress. The same applies to the delivery mechanism of the EBI keeping in mind the surprisingly large number of individuals without bank accounts or fixed abode. These are practical hurdles that can be overcome given time, but time is precisely what is at a premium in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In short, EBI is a good idea and a potentially vital tool in a comprehensive pandemic policy response, but introducing it now is not likely to happen in many jurisdictions. But let us think ahead for a moment. COVID-19 took the world by surprise, despite public health officials, epidemiologists, and many others warning us for many years about the possibility of a pandemic scenario and its disastrous social and economic consequences. In large part because of our continued destructive relationship with the environment and our highly connected societal organisation, the same professionals predict that COVID-19 is but the first – and in fact not even the first, think about SARS and MERS – in a long line of viral epidemics. This means we need to think ahead in terms of preparedness and acknowledge that the new normal may be a world in which the sort of economic shock we experience today is likely to come about again – possibly sooner than expected, and possibly in the form of an even more deadly and destructive disease. There is a need, therefore, to think about the policy responses that promote social and economic resilience and pandemic preparedness. Resilience is about ensuring that society maintains the capability to adequately respond to the sudden shock of a viral pandemic. Resilient policies will ensure that urgent human needs continue to be met during the pandemic crisis in a manner that reflects key social values – compassion, fairness, solidarity.

Basic income as a tool for resilience and readiness

Basic income would play an important role in terms of promoting social and economic resilience as part of pandemic preparedness policy. We can think of basic income and pandemic preparedness in two ways. One way in which society can become more resilient is by getting itself ready to implement an EBI as soon as the situation mandates it. This means having the required political debates now rather than in the midst of the next crisis. The current crisis experience means politicians and other key stakeholders are very much alive to the need for a robust economic support programme. The merits of EBI in this context can be debated in advance and legislation allowing for triggering its introduction in a pandemic context can be voted upon. Similarly, the practical aspects of readying society for the urgent introduction of EBI when needed can be addressed well in advance, with appropriate decision-making on how to deliver the measure in a time of reduced workforce capacity. 

There is a stronger strategy to consider, however. The best way to prepare society for the pandemic is to institute a proper, permanent basic income: a small monthly cash grant paid to all individuals with no strings attached. Having an actual basic income already in place obviates the need for political debate or finding solutions to implementation concerns in the midst of a crisis. It may be that we start off with a low basic income grant that needs “dialling up” to a much higher level in the midst of the pandemic crisis, but that would merely require a political decision on financing while the instrument itself is readily available. We find a real-world example of this strategy in Brazil. At the start of 2020, the municipality of Maricá near Rio de Janeiro had already instituted a low basic income that paid a monthly 130 reais (roughly 21 euros) to around 42 000 residents – not quite universal but with 25 per cent of the population covered and plans to expand over time a close approximation of the basic income ideal. As soon as COVID-19 hit Maricá built on the existing basic income scheme and is now paying the same individuals 300 reais (almost 50 euros) as part of the pandemic emergency response. The Maricá experience offers a prime example of how we can implement a rapid real-time response to an emergency by ratcheting up a pre-existing scheme.

Increased trust and solidarity would also be a critical feature for building resilience into political systems that currently are under thread of populism, polarisation, and partisanship.

Having a basic income in place boosts resilience in many other ways. The effects of economic security on public health are already well documented and are likely to be even greater under the added stress of a pandemic crisis. The existence of, and experience with, a secure income floor will ensure individuals and families enter a possible pandemic crisis – including protracted lockdown restrictions – much better prepared and less worried about their economic security. The expectation of maintaining a secure economic floor will have a critical positive impact on stress and mental health both at the start and during a pandemic crisis. The existence of an economic security floor is also likely to boost social relations by increasing trust and solidarity, which again is a critical feature for dealing with a pandemic on the community level. Increased trust

https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/basic-income-and-pandemic-preparedness/

QUARANTINE AMERICA
Tracking coronavirus cases proves difficult amid new surge

TRACKING WHICH IS MANDATORY IN EU WORKS!

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM MEANS VOLUNTARYIST IDEOLOGY 

WHICH IS WHY IT SHOULD FOREVER BE CALLED COVID-TRUMP 

AND CORONAVIRUSA

1 of 8
Contact tracers, from left to right, Christella Uwera, Dishell Freeman and Alejandra Camarillo work at Harris County Public Health contact tracing facility Thursday, June 25, 2020, in Houston. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that the state is facing a "massive outbreak" in the coronavirus pandemic and that some new local restrictions may be needed to protect hospital space for new patients. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

HOUSTON (AP) — Health departments around the U.S. that are using contact tracers to contain coronavirus outbreaks are scrambling to bolster their ranks amid a surge of cases and resistance to cooperation from those infected or exposed.

With too few trained contact tracers to handle soaring caseloads, one hard-hit Arizona county is relying on National Guard members to pitch in. In Louisiana, people who have tested positive typically wait more than two days to respond to health officials — giving the disease crucial time to spread. Many tracers are finding it hard to break through suspicion and apathy to convince people that compliance is crucial.

Contact tracing — tracking people who test positive and anyone they’ve come in contact with — was challenging even when stay-at-home orders were in place. Tracers say it’s exponentially more difficult now that many restaurants, bars and gyms are full, and people are gathering with family and friends.

“People are probably letting their guard down a little ... they think there is no longer a threat,” said Grand Traverse County, Michigan, Health Officer Wendy Hirschenberger, who was alerted by health officials in another part of the state that infected tourists had visited vineyards and bars in her area.

Her health department was then able to urge local residents who had visited those businesses to self-quarantine.

Hirschenberger was lucky she received that information — only made possible because the tourists had cooperated with contact tracers. But that’s often not the case.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, said Friday that contact tracing simply isn’t working in the U.S.

Some who test positive don’t cooperate because they don’t feel sick. Others refuse testing even after being exposed. Some never call back contact tracers. And still others simply object to sharing any information.

Another new challenge: More young people are getting infected, and they’re less likely to feel sick or believe that they’re a danger to others.

While older adults were more likely to be diagnosed with the virus early in the pandemic, figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that the picture flipped almost as soon as states began reopening. Now, people 18 to 49 years old are most likely to be diagnosed.

On Monday, the United States reported 38,800 newly confirmed infections, with the total surpassing 2.5 million, according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University. For a few days now, daily reported cases in the U.S. have broken the record set in April. That partially reflects increased testing.

Some states were caught off guard by the surge and are trying to quickly bolster the number of contact tracers.

“Right now we have an insufficient capacity to do the job we need to,” Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said recently, announcing he wanted to use federal coronavirus relief funds to increase the number of contact tracers to 900.

Arkansas already has 200 doing the job, but infections have risen more than 230% and hospitalizations nearly 170% since Memorial Day. Businesses that had closed because of the virus were allowed to reopen in early May, and the state further eased its restrictions this month.

In addition to needing more staff to handle rising case numbers, contact-tracing teams also must build trust with people who might be uneasy or scared, said Dr. Umair Shah, executive director for Harris County Public Health in Houston, where an outbreak threatens to overwhelm hospitals.

That’s difficult to do if infected people don’t return calls.

In Louisiana, only 59% of those who have tested positive since mid-May have responded to phone calls from contact tracers, according to the latest data from the state health department. Just one-third answered within the crucial first 24 hours after the test results. Tracers there get an answered phone call, on average, more than two days after receiving information about the positive test.

Perry N. Halkitis, dean of the Rutgers School of Public Health, said COVID-19 spreads so fast that contact tracers need to get in touch with 75% of the potentially exposed people within 24 hours of their exposure to successfully combat the spread.

“Is it as good as we would like? Well, obviously not,” said Dr. Jimmy Guidry, Louisiana’s state health officer. “It’s better than not having it.”

Contact tracers around Utah’s capital of Salt Lake City have seen caseloads double and cooperation wane since the economy reopened, said health investigator Mackenzie Bray. One person who wasn’t answering calls told Bray they didn’t want to waste her time because they and their contacts weren’t high-risk — a dangerous assessment because the person might not know the health history of their contacts, Bray said.

Getting people to act on tracers’ advice also is a challenge. In the Seattle area, only 21% of infected people say they went into isolation on the day they developed symptoms. People, on average, are going three days from time they develop symptoms until they test, said Dr. Matt Golden, a University of Washington doctor who is leading case investigations for King County Public Health Department.

Since people are infectious for two days before symptoms, that means many are spreading the virus for five days, he said.

In hard-hit Maricopa County, Arizona, officials hired 82 people to bolster contact tracing, allowing them to reach 600 people a day, said Marcy Flanagan, executive director of the Maricopa County Department of Public Health.

But the daily average of confirmed infections has soared, to 1,800 a day from 200 in May, county figures show. That means the county must leave the rest of the cases to be handled by colleges, health agencies and the Arizona National Guard, Flanagan said.

All of them must triage: Each infected person is asked in an automated text to fill out a survey to assess their risk level, and tracers only contact by phone those who appear to be high risk or work in settings that could trigger a dangerous outbreak, such as an assisted living facility.


TRACKING WHICH IS MANDATORY IN EU WORKS!
Contact tracing is key to avoiding worst-case outcomes, said Dr. Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and current president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives, a nonprofit that works to prevent epidemics. But the explosion of U.S. case has made it nearly impossible for even the most well-staffed health departments to keep up, he said.

Contact tracing is “a tried and true public health function,” Frieden said. “If the health department calls, pick up the phone.”

___

Webber reported from Fenton, Michigan, and McCombs from Salt Lake City. Associated Press journalists Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Carla K. Johnson in Seattle; Melinda Deslatte in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Terry Chea in San Francisco contributed.

US High Court makes it easier for president to remove CFPB head

The sun rises behind the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, June 29, 2020. The Supreme Court has refused to block the execution of four federal prison inmates who are scheduled to be put to death in July and August. The executions would mark the first use of the death penalty on the federal level since 2003. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday made it easier for the president to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The justices struck down restrictions on when the president can remove the bureau’s director.

“The agency may ... continue to operate, but its Director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the President at will,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

The court’s five conservative justices agreed that restrictions Congress imposed on when the president can fire the agency’s director violated the Constitution. But they disagreed on what to do as a result. Roberts and fellow conservative justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh said the restrictions could be stricken from the law. The court’s four liberals agreed, though they disagreed the restrictions were improper.

The decision doesn’t have a big impact on the current head of the agency. Kathy Kraninger, who was nominated to her current post by the president in 2018, had said she believed the president could fire her at any time.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act that created the agency in response to the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB’s director is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term. The law had said the president could only remove a director for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” That structure could leave a new president with a director chosen by the previous president for some or all of the new president’s time in office. The Trump administration had argued that the restrictions improperly limit the power of the president.

Defenders of the law’s removal provision had argued the restrictions insulated the agency’s head from presidential pressure.

“Today’s decision wipes out a feature of that agency its creators thought fundamental to its mission—a measure of independence from political pressure. I respectfully dissent,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for herself and the court’s four liberals.

The agency was the brainchild of Massachusetts senator and former Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren.

US Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana abortion clinic law

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics, reasserting a commitment to abortion rights over fierce opposition from dissenting conservative justices in the first big abortion case of the Trump era.

Chief Justice John Roberts and his four more liberal colleagues ruled that the law requiring doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals violates the abortion rights the court first announced in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

The Louisiana law is virtually identical to one in Texas that the court struck down in 2016.

But Roberts, who had dissented in that Texas case, did not join the opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer for the other liberals in Monday’s decision, and his position left abortion-rights supporters more relieved than elated.

The chief justice explained that he continues to think the Texas case was wrongly decided, but believes it’s important for the court to stand by its prior decisions.

“The result in this case is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a nearly identical Texas law,” Roberts wrote.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction.”

President Donald Trump’s two appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were in dissent, along with Justice Samuel Alito. The presence of the new justices is what fueled hopes among abortion opponents, and fears on the other side, that the Supreme Court would be more likely to uphold restrictions.

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Monday’s decision by no means ends the struggle over abortion rights in legislatures and the courts.

“We’re relieved that the Louisiana law has been blocked today but we’re concerned about tomorrow. With this win, the clinics in Louisiana can stay open to serve the one million women of reproductive age in the state. But the Court’s decision could embolden states to pass even more restrictive laws when clarity is needed if abortion rights are to be protected,” Northup said.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, said, “Today’s ruling is a bitter disappointment. It demonstrates once again the failure of the Supreme Court to allow the American people to protect the well-being of women from the tentacles of a brutal and profit-seeking abortion industry.”

A trial judge had said the law would not provide health benefits to women and would leave only one clinic open in Louisiana, in New Orleans. That would make it too hard for women to get an abortion, in violation of the Constitution, the judge ruled.

But the appeals court in New Orleans rejected the judge’s findings and upheld the law in 2018, doubting that any clinics would have to close and saying the doctors had not tried hard enough to establish relationships with local hospitals.

The clinics filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court, asking that the law be blocked while the justices evaluated the case.

Early last year, Roberts joined with the four liberal members of the court to grant that request and keep the law on hold.

Roberts’ vote was a bit of a surprise because he voted in the Texas case to uphold the clinic restrictions. It may have reflected his new role since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement as the court’s swing justice, his concern about the court being perceived as a partisan institution and respect for a prior decision of the court, even one he disagreed with. Roberts didn’t write anything explaining his position at the time, but he had never before cast a vote on the side of abortion rights.

The regulations at issue in Louisiana are distinct from other state laws making their way through court challenges that would ban abortions early in a pregnancy. Those include bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, as early as 6 weeks, and the almost total ban passed in Alabama.

Taiwan parade celebrates LGBT Pride, island’s virus success
FINALLY LET OUT ......OF LOCKDOWN 

1 of 12

Participants march during the "Taiwan Pride March for the World!" at Liberty Square at the CKS Memorial Hall in Taipei, Taiwan, Sunday, June 28, 2020. This year marks the first Gay Pride march in Chicago 1970, and due to the COVID-19 lockdown, Taiwan is one of the very few countries to host the world's only physical Gay Pride. (AP Photo/Chiang Ying-ying)


TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — The Taiwanese capital held its annual LGBT Pride parade on Sunday, making it one of the few places in the world to proceed with such an event in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.

The parade in Taipei has drawn tens of thousands of people in the past, but participant numbers Sunday were reduced by both virus concerns and heavy rain. Taiwan’s Central News Agency said that over 1,000 attended.

Those who did take part said it was a testament both to Taiwan’s ability to contain the pandemic and its commitment to rights for people of all sexual orientations.

Taiwan is the only place in Asia where same-sex marriage is legal, and its liberal political system has long promoted human rights, free speech and freedom of assembly.

American student Loren Couse, 28, said Taipei’s ability to hold the parade was “really impressive.”

“I think Taiwan has done a really good job so far, and I am really proud of living here, not only because it’s so open to people like myself, the gay community, but also because I think it’s such an example for the world and how to handle the pandemic so far,” Couse said.

New York was among the cities compelled to cancel its gay Pride parade this year to comply with social distancing measures.

Taiwan has largely dropped such restrictions after quarantines and case tracing helped bring the coronavirus infection rate down radically. In all, the island of 23.7 million people has confirmed 447 cases, including seven deaths.

Paris mayor reelected, green wave in France local elections
By SYLVIE CORBET

1 of 21https://apnews.com/16e161a4349cd2712c5cb084259f1ece 

Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo blows a kiss to the audience after her victorious second round of the municipal election, Sunday, June 28, 2020 in Paris. France on Sunday held the second round of municipal elections that has seen a record low turnout amid concerns over the coronavirus outbreak and anger at how President Emmanuel Macron's government handled it. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)

PARIS (AP) — Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo declared victory in her reelection bid as municipal elections postponed by the coronavirus crisis have seen a strong breakthrough from the greens across the country.

Sunday’s voting also appears as a setback for French President Emmanuel Macron’s young centrist party, which was fielding municipal candidates for the first time and still lacks local roots across France.

Hidalgo, a Socialist, largely beat conservative candidate Rachida Dati, according to estimates based on partial results. She was first elected as Paris mayor in 2014. Her reelection will allow her to oversee the 2024 Summer Olympics.

Hidalgo is backed by the Europe Ecology-The Greens party, which gained strong influence nationwide.

Green candidates won in France’s major cities including Marseille, Lyon, Strasbourg and Bordeaux, often taking the lead in their alliance with the weakened Socialist Party.

The second round of the municipal elections has seen a record low turnout amid lingering worries about the pandemic.

Only 40% of voters cast ballots as people were required to wear masks in polling stations, maintain social distancing while in lines and carry their own pens to sign voting registers.

Poll organizers were wearing masks and gloves for protection, and in some places they were separated from voters by transparent plastic shields. Mail-in voting isn’t allowed in France.

Macron expressed his “concerns” over the low turnout, “which is not very good news,” according to his office.

Interior Minister Christophe Castaner, in charge of organizing the elections, said that “everywhere across France, health measures ... were able to be respected. That is a satisfaction.”

Sunday’s voting was meant to choose mayors and municipal councilors in about 5,000 towns and cities.

The electoral process was suspended after the first round of the nationwide municipal elections on March 15, which produced decisive outcomes in 30,000 mostly small communes. Macron’s critics say he shouldn’t have allowed the first round to go ahead at all, since it was held just as infections were exploding across Europe and just two days before France introduced sweeping nationwide lockdown measures.

The spread of the coronavirus has slowed significantly in France in recent weeks and almost all restrictions on social and business activity have been gradually lifted over the last month. France has reported nearly 200,000 confirmed cases and 29,781 deaths in the pandemic but experts believe all reported figures are undercounts due to limited testing and missed mild cases.

The elections, though ostensibly focused on local concerns, are also seen as a key political indicator ahead of the 2022 French presidential election.

Macron had said he wasn’t considering the elections as a pro- or anti-government vote.

Yet a government reshuffle is expected in the coming weeks, as Macron seeks a new political boost amid the economic difficulties prompted by the virus crisis. French authorities have faced criticism during the pandemic over mask shortages, testing capacity and for going ahead with the first round of elections instead of imposing a lockdown earlier.

Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, whose job may be threatened by the reshuffle, won a large victory in his hometown of Le Havre where he was running for mayor.

Philippe has seen his popularity increase significantly in recent weeks. He may appoint someone else to act as mayor if he remains at the head of the government.

Recent opinion polls show Macron’s popularity rating is hovering around 40%, which is higher than from before the virus outbreak.

His party, Republic on the Move, didn’t have candidates in every race and in some instances was backing local politicians from the left or the right instead.

Government spokesperson Sibeth Ndiaye acknowledged the party’s modest result in the elections, stressing that planting local roots “is taking time.”

The conservative Republicans party, which was the big winner in the 2014 municipal election and has a strong network of local elected officials, appeared to do well again.

The anti-immigration, far-right National Rally won a symbolic victory in the southern city of Perpignan, leading Louis Aliot to become the first member of the party to run a city of more than 100,000 inhabitants.

___

Alex Turnbull contributed to this report.

As French Greens notch gains, Macron renews his green agenda

Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo gets a bouquet of flowers after her victorious second round of the municipal election, Sunday, June 28, 2020 in Paris. France on Sunday held the second round of municipal elections that has seen a record low turnout amid concerns over the coronavirus outbreak and anger at how President Emmanuel Macron's government handled it. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena) https://apnews.com/aaea64ef65bfdf80a876f7d808a244bc

PARIS (AP) — French President Emmanuel Macron, who once declared “Make The Planet Great Again” but whose climate agenda got knocked off course by persistent street protests, is under new pressure to fight climate change after the Green Party did well in Sunday’s local elections.

France’s Green party and its left-wing allies made significant gains in the second round of voting, capturing cities such as Lyon, Strasbourg and Besançon.

To show that he is taking the gains seriously, Macron is meeting Monday with a citizens’ group that he convened earlier this year in response to criticism that he wasn’t doing enough on the climate.

The citizens’ group is giving him a new list of climate proposals drawn from an ambitious report it compiled, which includes recommendations on fighting CO2 emissions by weening the French off solo car rides and proposing alternatives such as electric cars, as well as capping the harmful effects of air travel.

The group reserved most of its fire on travel, which produces 30% of greenhouse gases in France.

The yellow vest economic justice protests that brought France to its knees for months knocked some of Macron’s green agenda off track as it was was triggered by opposition to a new fuel tax that he planned to help in the climate fight.

Earlier this year, Macron tried to woo green voters by calling the battle against climate change and environmental destruction “the fight of the century.” The words came during a February visit to a melting glacier in the French Alps but it was condemned as a hollow electoral stunt by environmental campaigners. Critics accused Macron of using the icy photo-op to burnish his government’s green credentials ahead of the local elections.

Auction of contested African artifacts going ahead in Paris

PARIS (AP) — A Nigerian commission has called for the cancellation of Monday’s auction in Paris of sacred Nigerian statues that it alleges were stolen.

Christie’s auction house has defended the sale, saying the artworks were legitimately acquired and the sale will go ahead.

In recent years, French courts have consistently ruled in favor of auction houses whose sales of sacred objects, such as Hopi tribal masks, were contested by rights groups and representatives of the tribes.

A Princeton scholar, professor Chika Okeke-Agulu, alongside Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments, raised alarm earlier this month that the objects were looted during the Biafran war in the late 1960s.

Christie’s wrote earlier this month to the Nigerian commission, saying the sale would go ahead.

Okeke-Agulu, who is a member of the Igbo tribe, said the objects were taken through “an act of violence” from his home state of Anambra and that they should not be sold. An online petition with over 2,000 signatures is demanding that the auction be halted.

The petition said “as the world awakens to the reality of systemic racial injustice and inequality, thanks to the #BlackLivesMatter movement, we must not forget that it is not just the Black body, but also Black culture, identity and especially art that is being misappropriated.”

It claims that between 1967 and 1970, as Nigeria’s Biafran civil war raged and while more than 3 million civilians were dying, a renowned European treasure hunter was in Biafra “on a hunting spree for our cultural heritage.”

In a statement to AP Monday, Christie’s said “these objects are being lawfully sold having been publicly exhibited and previously sold over the last decades prior to Christie’s involvement.”

While the auction house said it recognized the “nuanced and complex debates around cultural property,” it said that public sales should go ahead of objects like these to stop the black market flourishing.

Paris has a long history of collecting and selling tribal artifacts, tied to its colonial past in Africa, and to Paris-based groups in the 1960s, such as the “Indianist” movement that celebrated indigenous tribal cultures.

Interest in tribal art in Paris was revived in the early 2000s following two high-profile — and highly lucrative — sales in Paris of tribal art owned by late collectors Andre Breton(FOUNDER OF SURREALISM) and Robert Lebel.

Controversy over sales can be a double-edged sword for an auction house. In the past, such contested sales have served to raise the ultimate selling price of the objects going under the hammer because of media interest, but there has also been instances where buyers have been deterred from purchasing artifacts over fears of a backlash.

Israeli court releases anti-Netanyahu activist after arrest
By TIA GOLDENBERG yesterday

Protesters against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wave flags and banners outside his residence in Jerusalem, Sunday, May 24, 2020. Hundreds of protesters calling him the "crime minister" demonstrated outside his official residence, while hundreds of supporters, including leading members of his Likud party, rallied in support of him at the courthouse. Netanyahu faces charges of fraud, breach of trust, and accepting bribes in a series of corruption cases. The signs say "Netanyahu resign," and "Justice shall you pursue." (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)


JERUSALEM (AP) — A court ordered the release of a former Air Force general and leading critic of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from jail on Sunday, a day after hundreds of people protested outside the Israeli leader’s residence calling for him to be freed.

Retired Brig. Gen. Amir Haskel has been a leader of the protest movement against Netanyahu, demanding that the long-time leader step down while facing charges of fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes. Haskel and several others were detained on Friday in what police said was an “illegal” demonstration because the protesters blocked roads.

The arrest of Haskel, a former top Israeli Air Force general, has turned him into a symbol of the protest movement that opposes Netanyahu’s continued rule. Demonstrations have been held regularly around the country, with protesters waving signs reading “crime minister” and calling for Netanyahu to resign.

“A line was crossed that must not be crossed. The reason for my arrest was a desire to silence the protest against the person accused of a crime, Benjamin Netanyahu,” Haskel told a news conference Sunday evening. “In the moral state of Israel, there is no way a person accused of a crime should be prime minister.”

“If my arrest, and the arrest of two of my friends, lit the flame, the price was worth it,” he added.

The arrests drew angry denunciations from prominent Israelis and sent hundreds out to protest outside Netanyahu’s residence on Saturday, with many slamming the police for making what they viewed as politically motivated arrests.

Police said they offered to release Haskel and others if they agreed to refrain from returning to the scene of the protests. Haskel and two others refused the conditions and remained in detention.

Gaby Lasky, Haskel’s lawyer, told Israeli Army Radio that the court eventually released him without conditions, saying protesting was the foundation of democracy.

The country’s acting police chief said the force would learn from the incident.

“The role of the police is to allow freedom of expression and demonstration to every person and to keep the public peace and security, this regardless of the protest’s subject, the identity of the protesters or their opinions,” acting commissioner Motti Cohen said.

Netanyahu is on trial for a series of scandals in which he allegedly received lavish gifts from billionaire friends and traded regulatory favors with media moguls for more favorable coverage of himself and his family. The trial is set to resume next month.

Netanyahu has denied wrongdoing, calling the charges a witch-hunt against him by a hostile media and a biased law enforcement system.

The scandals, and Netanyahu’s indictment, featured prominently in three Israeli election campaigns over the course of a year. The political stalemate finally ended last month when Netanyahu reached a power-sharing agreement with his chief challenger, retired military chief Benny Gantz.

But tensions were still evident at Sunday’s weekly Cabinet meeting when Gantz, the defense minister and alternate prime minister, noted Haskel’s arrest and said the right to protest was a “sacred right.”

Netanyahu, seated alongside him, retorted that the right to protest was never in question and that Israel allowed it even amid the most restrictive of times during the recent coronavirus outbreak.

“The argument that we are looking to limit it is absurd,” he said. “ At the same time, the laws and regulations of the state of Israel must be maintained. It is not the prerogative of one side to say they support the rule of law and then to trample it.”

Boris Johnson says COVID-19 has been a disaster for Britain

ACTUALLY IT'S BORIS WHO HAS BEEN THE DISASTER FOR BRITAIN 

By JILL LAWLES   https://apnews.com/c264bede9442cf8ce15a217d4fc54f92