Women block traffic across Poland over abortion ruling
26 Oct, 2020

Women's rights activists and their supporters block rush-hour traffic at a major roundabout on the fifth day of nationwide protests. Photos / AP

By: Monika Scislowska

Women's rights activists and many thousands of their supporters held a fifth day of protests across Poland today, defying pandemic restrictions to express their fury at a top court ruling.

It tightens the predominantly Catholic nation's already strict abortion law.

In Warsaw, mostly young demonstrators — women and men — with drums, horns and firecrackers blocked rush-hour traffic for hours at a number of major roundabouts. Some of them took off their shirts and stood topless on top of cars. Many held banners with an obscenity calling on the right-wing Government to step down.

A protesting woman was taken to hospital with slight injuries after she and another woman were hit by a car. The other woman was not injured.

Organisers said people joined their protests in more than 150 cities in Poland, including Poznan, Lodz and Katowice. It was one of the biggest protests against the Government in recent years.

In Krakow protesters chanted "This is War!" — a slogan that demonstrators have repeated often in recent days. They also shouted obscenities against the country's traditionally respected Catholic bishops.

Protesters defied a nationwide ban on gatherings intended to halt a spike in new coronavirus infections.

They have taken to the streets each day since the Constitutional Tribunal ruled on Friday that it was unconstitutional to terminate a pregnancy due to fetal congenital defects. The ruling effectively bans almost all abortions in the country.

People protest in Warsaw against a court ruling that tightened further Poland's restrictive abortion law.

The ruling has not taken effect yet, because it has not been officially published, which is a requirement of a law's validity.

The head of a doctors' group, Dr Andrzej Matyja, speaking on Radio Zet, criticised the ruling's timing during the pandemic, saying it amounted to an "irresponsible provoking of people to rallies" where social distancing cannot be maintained.

Poland's conservative leaders have also come under criticism from professors at Krakow's reputed Jagiellonian University who said that announcing such a ruling during a pandemic was an "extreme proof of a lack of responsibility for people's lives."

In a letter to Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and to President Andrzej Duda, who is infected with the coronavirus, the professors appealed for a "way out of the situation ... to be urgently found."

Many gynecologists have also criticised the ruling. Dr Maciej Jedrzejko said the ban will result in a rise in the number of dangerous, illegal abortions, arguing that sex education and access to contraceptives are the best ways to limit abortions.

The ruling by the government-controlled court overturned a provision of the 1993 law forged by the country's political authorities and church leaders after the fall of communism. That law permitted abortion in only limited cases, becoming one of Europe's strictest abortion regulations.

When the ruling takes effect, the only permitted abortions will be if a pregnancy threatens the woman's health or is the result of rape or incest.

- AP

Women's rights protests block city streets over Poland's abortion law

Activists have vowed to continue their fight against a ruling that amounts to a near-total ban on abortion. Pregnancies that endanger a woman's life and those caused by rape or incest are now the only legal avenues.



Tens of thousands of protesters across almost 50 Polish cities blocked city streets in cars, on bicycles and on foot on Monday on the fifth day of demonstrations against a a supreme court decision to tighten an already strict abortion law in the predominantly Catholic country.

Carrying banners reading "Enough," "hell for women" and "I want choice, not terror", people gathered across the country in defiance of coronavirus restrictions.

"I will be here until the end," Piotr Wybanski, a 31-year-old protester in the capital Warsaw, told Reuters. "I don't care if it means a week, a month, three months or three years. I will protest here day after day."


Protests began last Thursday when the Constitutional Tribunal banned abortions related to fetal defects

Women’s rights activists in Poland said they would not back down and that more protests were planned for the week.

Marta Lempart, head of the Women's Strike group, said there would be a strike on Wednesday and a protest march on Friday in Warsaw ­ — the seat of the government, the constitutional court and the headquarters of the ruling right-wing Law and Justice party that brought the case to court.

Protests erupted last Thursday when Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal banned abortions related to fetal congenital defects.

The court ruled that an existing law allowing the termination of malformed fetuses was "incompatible" with the constitution.

The ruling ended the most common of the few remaining legal grounds for abortion in the predominantly Catholic country. Abortion is now only permitted in cases where the mother's life is at risk or if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.


Tens of thousands of protesters across almost 50 Polish cities blocked city streets in cars, on bicycles and on foot

Read more: Opinion: Abortion ruling is a nightmare for Polish women
Protesters target churches

Protesters defied Poland’s "red zone" ban on gatherings aimed at preventing further outbreak of the coronavirus, though many did wear facemasks.

On Sunday, thousands of activists disrupted church services across the country, chanting and spraying slogans on walls to protest the ban. Angry crowds carried posters depicting a crucified pregnant woman and gave out protest cards to priests.


Poland's ruling amounts to a near-total ban on abortion

Andrzej Matyja, the leader of a doctor's group, denounced the ruling’s timing during the pandemic. Matyja told local station Radio Zet that the move has resulted in an "irresponsible provoking of people to rallies'' where physical distancing cannot be upheld.


Activists said they would not back down and that more protests were planned for the week

EU slams ruling

According to health ministry figures, 1,110 legal abortions were carried out in Poland in 2019, mostly due to fetal defects.

Poland already has some of the European Union’s most stringent restrictions on abortion.

Polish opposition parties, the EU's human rights commissioner as well as international human rights organizations have also condemned the court's decision as violating women's rights.

US election: Gun, ammo sales soar as Americans 'hope for the best, prepare for the worst'

26 Oct, 2020 
By: Jamie Seidel

ANALYSIS:

Left, right, black, white: Americans are frantically buying assault rifles, body armour and ammunition. All are flying out the door as fearful US citizens prepare for the worst even as they hope for the best.

The economy has tanked. Unemployment has spiked. Social media is awash with hate and conspiracy theories.

Add a string of police killings, mass Covid-19 fatalities and a bitterly contested presidential election and the outcome is a volatile rift extending through all sectors of US society.

Which is why citizens of all colours and creeds are spending up big on combat gear.

Gun shops across the country are reporting they have sold out of ammunition. Firearm stocks are running low. And there's been a run on body armour, helmets, gas masks and tactical webbing, too.

A slew of studies reveal it's a trend being seen across the US.

Monthly firearm sales in the US from 2010 to 2020. Graphic / Brookings Institution

And its outcome can be seen in the streets.

While weapons sales usually rise during US election years, this year has been unlike any other. Photo / AP

Camouflage-clad demonstrators are everywhere, adding the severity of their uniforms to whatever their message may be. Their weapons stand testament to the rigidity of their beliefs.
'My worst nightmare'

"The militias and the white supremacists … they're going to put out the call to arms," 73-year-old Milwaukee resident Jim Jackson told the Los Angeles Times. "That's my worst nightmare."

Meanwhile, Trump supporter Jeanine Davis said she expected a violent backlash from disaffected Democrats: "It's going to be like war among citizens," she said.

While weapons sales usually rise during US election years, this year has been unlike any other

Data released by Statistica shows a doubling of firearms sales in March and June. Anecdotally, sales have continued to surge since then.

US President Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania on October 26. Photo / AP

"It's evidence of what many people have been expressing concern about for the last six months – the stress associated with the pandemic, a frustration or anger about various government mitigation efforts and a belief that those efforts are infringing on their individual liberties," former assistant secretary for threat prevention at the Department of Homeland Security, Elizabeth Neumann, told Bloomberg.

Such statistics don't record race or political ideology. But shop owners are reporting a flood of first-time buyers – and women – among their exploding new clientele.

"If I dial 911, I'm not going to get the police officer," Texas gunshop owner Michael Cargill said, explaining his customers' reasoning to Politico, "I'm going to have to be my own first responder. I'm going to have to get a gun."

Another Texas gun shop owner, Roman Zrazhevsky, told media that sentiment was universal.

"It doesn't matter who gets elected," he said. "They think that no matter who wins, Biden or Trump, there are going to be people who are upset about the result."

The highlights from Donald Trump and Joe Biden's clash in the final Presidential debate. Video / AP
Identity crisis

Tactical gear speaks "to a form of militaristic patriotism, a way for them to find their identities", said Neumann.

Which may be why US militias are experiencing a surge in membership.

Once the domain of disillusioned vets and kids wanting to wear camo, these armed groups have surged into the streets in recent months.

Their profiles have exploded across social media.

And they're not just the usual suspects.

Standing against the ranks of the largely white, far right armed gangs is an all-African American group called the "Not F**king Around Coalition" (NFAC). The Atlanta-based group's ranks has swelled amid the frustration and outrage fanned by months of protests against police brutality.

"We're not 'effing' around anymore with the continued abuses within our community and the lack of respect for our men, women and children," founder John Johnson told CNN.

He's claiming the same Second Amendment right to bear arms as the largely white groups standing opposite him. And trade group studies indicate a 60 per cent surge in gun sales to black Americans in the first six months of the year.

This has not gone down well.

Louisiana Republican Representative Clay Higgins used Facebook to declare he would "drop 10 of you where you stand", if NFAC was to visit his state.

But NFAC insists it has the constitutional right to do the same as its opponents.

"Nobody says anything when other demographics pick up weapons, decide to arm themselves and confront the government over anything from wearing a mask to being cooped up in the house, but when certain demographics arm themselves all of a sudden people tend to act as if the Constitution doesn't matter," Johnson, who also calls himself "Grand Master Jay", said.

'Phony war'

The Office of the President of the United States has a three-month transition period between the November 3 elections and the January 20 handover date.

Whatever the outcome, this is likely to be a period of immense political tensions.

The validity of the vote is already being challenged. Doubts are being cast on the integrity of postal votes, in particular.

Scandals over foreign deals and influence, debts and addictions, nepotism and corruption will undoubtedly continue to flare. Covid-19 cases continue to soar, with the calamitous death toll following just a few weeks behind.

And adding to the uncertainty is President Donald Trump's reluctance to willingly embrace the idea of handing over power if he is defeated.

No matter what side they are on, US voters appear convinced that if the opposition wins – it's a win for the "forces of evil". To vote for one's opponent isn't a difference in opinion, it's treason.

It's a polarised precipice from which no side seems prepared to step back.

Some 21 per cent of both left and right believe violence would be "somewhat" justified if they lost the presidential election, according to recent polling.

And those not busy arming themselves are preparing for a siege. Grocery and camping stores are reporting empty shelves among their non-perishable and dry goods sections.

Floridian Trump supporter Ashley Avis summed up the pervading mood: "We're hoping for the best. We're preparing for the worst."

Covid 19 coronavirus: Study shows Covid leading death for young in some US states

26 Oct, 2020 

Despite US president Donald Trump claiming his son Barron's coronavirus infection was "gone" after "15 minutes", a new study says the virus has likely become the leading cause of death among young people in some regions of the United States.

For people aged between 25 and 44 living in one of 11 states with high infection rates - such as New York, Arkansas and Arizona - the chance of dying from Covid-19 is greater than any other risk, the researchers found.

In these states, 2,450 young adults died of coronavirus between March and July, slightly more than those killed in 2018 (the latest figure available) by accidental drug overdose, previously the leading cause of death in this age group.

"In these regions, Covid-19 mortality also resembles that of the HIV/Aids epidemic at its apex in the United States," said the team led by Dr Jeremy Samuel Faust of the Harvard Medical School in a non-peer-reviewed paper posted on medrxiv.org on Sunday.

Faust and his colleagues examined the data released by the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and found that in 2020 the number of deaths from all causes among young people to the end of July this year was a quarter higher than the same period last year.

The 14,155 excessive deaths had a peak rise in May, but only a small fraction were attributed directly to the coronavirus.

This implies "the mortality of Covid-19 has been substantially underdetected in the younger adult population," they said.

During his recently rallies in locations around the country, Trump has been using Barron's apparent rapid recovery from coronavirus as an example for why it's okay for schools to reopen.

President Donald Trump, right, and his son Barron Trump wave from the top of the steps to Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport. Photo / AP

"Young, strong immune systems, right?" Trump said during a rally in battleground state Wisconsin on Saturday.

"Go back to school. Let's go back to school. No, it's true. We tested positive and then 15 minutes later I said, 'How's he doing, doc? He's fine,"' Trump said during that speech.
Related articles


A Shanghai-based life scientist studying the Sars-CoV-2 virus said the study deepened her worry about young people in the US.

"It is immoral and irresponsible to let the young Americans get infected to achieve herd immunity," she said.

A study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases this month reported that a 25-year-old man in Nevada had considerably worse symptoms after contracting the novel coronavirus for the second time.

The Shanghai-based researcher said that there could be more cases of reinfection, including a woman in her 30s in Wisconsin that the researcher knew personally.

"This could be the beginning of an explosion," said the researcher who asked not to be named because she does not have Chinese government approval to comment.

Trump has claimed - without evidence - that American doctors and hospitals were inflating data, including coronavirus-related deaths, to increase their own financial interest.

Students arrive for in-person classes at Erasmus High School in Brooklyn's Flatbush neighbourhood in New York. Photo / AP

"If somebody's terminally ill with cancer and they have Covid, we report them. And you know doctors get more money and hospitals get more money, think of this incentive," said Trump during a rally in Illinois on Saturday.

Trump added he would "start looking into things" as "their reporting systems are really not doing it right".


Faust said that "physicians are angry right now" at Trump's allegations.

"But we are data-driven, and we want to offer solutions," he tweeted on Sunday.

"If we were cooking the books, why do all-cause excess deaths and official Covid-19 deaths so closely track over time," he said in a separate tweet.

Senior patients are several hundred times more likely to die from Covid-19 than younger populations, according to studies by researchers around the globe. The burden of the disease on younger generations thus received relatively less attention, according to Faust.

Dr Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist and currently the top scientific adviser to the White House' pandemic response team, said there was no issue with young people getting infected as long as their elders stayed in protective care.

"It doesn't matter if younger, healthier people get infected ? They have nearly zero risk of a problem from this," he said in a television interview in July.

But a study by British researchers released on medrxiv.org this month found that young adult patients with no previous medical history could get long-lasting health problems after recovering from Covid-19. More than 70 per cent of young patients were impaired in one or more organs four months after the initial infection.

Enduring symptoms included fatigue, muscle pain, difficulty to breathe and headaches.

- South China Morning Post

Trump admin dismantles 'firewall' for editorial independence at U.S.-funded media outlets
Lawmakers and press freedom groups fear the administration is trying to turn the U.S.-funded news outlets into partisan mouthpieces.

The Voice of America building in Washington, on June 15, 2020.Andrew Harnik / AP file



Oct. 27, 2020, 12:47 AM MDT
By Dan De Luce


A senior U.S. official appointed by President Donald Trump has scrapped a federal regulation designed to protect the editorial independence of Voice of America and other U.S.-funded media outlets, amid accusations he is undermining the journalistic credibility of the broadcasters.

Michael Pack, CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media who rescinded the editorial “firewall” regulation late Monday night, said the federal rule was legally flawed, infringed on the president’s right to conduct U.S. foreign policy and was "unworkable.”


Reporters at the U.S.-funded broadcasters have accused Pack of trying to turn the service into a mouthpiece for Trump, and former executives said they expected legal challenges to the decision.

JUNE: Firings at U.S. funded media agency spark concerns of politicization as Trump-appointee takes helm  JUNE 22, 202004:38

The federal regulation granting editorial independence was introduced in June by an outgoing board of governors that used to oversee the U.S.-funded broadcasters. The board was dissolved once Pack was confirmed by the Senate in a party-line vote as CEO of the U.S. Global Media Agency (USAGM), the parent agency for Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other federally funded broadcasters.

The regulation, titled “Firewall and Highest Standards of Professional Journalism,” had prohibited any interference in the editorial work of the U.S. media outlets. It barred executives or officials outside the newsroom from “attempts to direct, pressure, coerce, threaten, interfere with, or otherwise impermissibly influence any of the USAGM Networks, including their leadership, officers, employees, or staff, in the performance of their journalistic and broadcasting duties and activities.”

In announcing his decision Monday night, Pack argued that the regulation wrongly described the U.S.-funded outlets as equivalent to private news organizations and maintained that VOA and the other broadcasters have a mission to promote U.S. foreign policy interests, unlike private-sector media.

He also said that the regulation was impractical and could prevent him from carrying out his legally mandated duties.

“Not only was this rule based on flawed legal and constitutional reasoning, it made the agency difficult to manage and less able to fulfill its important mission to inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy,” Pack said in his statement.

“No agency run by a CEO, or another type of head, has any kind of ‘firewall’ between himself and the rest of his agency,” he said.

Press freedom groups, lawmakers from both parties, former executives at the agency and current and former journalists at the U.S.-funded outlets have blasted Pack’s tenure as CEO, saying he has tarnished the reputation of the broadcasters and hurt America’s image abroad as a champion of a free press.

At a congressional hearing last month, former USAGM officials sharply criticized Pack for placing commentaries on the news outlets’ homepages, firing the head of editorial standards, sacking the chiefs of all the broadcasters, refusing to renew visas for foreign journalists working at the agency, withholding funding for some daily operations and saying the agency would be “a great place to put a spy.”

“Our reputation for telling the truth has been a core element of our strength as a nation. Now, it is in danger, putting at risk not only our national values, but also our national security,” Ryan Crocker, a retired senior diplomat who served on the former board of governors for the U.S.-funded broadcasters, told lawmakers at a September congressional hearing.

Republican lawmakers have expressed frustration in particular over Pack’s decision to block about $20 million in funding for a non-profit that provides anti-censorship technology to people in repressive societies, including Belarus, China and Iran. They said the move had cut off democracy activists in Hong Kong and elsewhere in their hour of need.

The U.S. Global Media Agency, with of budget of about $800 million, oversees broadcasters that reach an estimated 350 million people a week in 62 languages.
Dan De Luce

Dan De Luce is a reporter for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

India-China Conflict Exacerbated by Shifting US Alliance

Oct 27 , 2020

print

• 

  Zab Zaheer

  Development Consultant

In early September, China accused Indian soldiers of illegally crossing a disputed border and firing at Chinese troops on patrol in the Ladakh region. A senior colonel, Zhang Shuili, said that Indian troops had “seriously violated related agreements reached by both sides, stirred up tensions in the region... and is very vile in nature.” India denies that any such crossing took place, saying instead that Chinese troops fired into the air, “in an attempt to intimidate [our] own troops”. 

Just a day before the dispute, the Indian military reported that five Indian civilians were kidnapped by Chinese troops. The People’s Liberation Army was able to find the five civilians, and the process of returning them has begun. And in June of this year, , India accused Chinese troops of instigating a clash in Ladakh. Twenty Indian soldiers were killed and over seventy were injured. 

Each of these incidents are only the latest in a string of minor disputes that reflect tensions between India and China as both countries – representing two of the world’s largest armed forces – continue to vie for dominance in the region. Despite having fought only one war against each other in 1962, the last three decades have been peppered with failed attempts at conflict resolution. 

This continuing mistrust between two of the world’s most populous nuclear powers is further exacerbated by the shifting nature of their relationships with the U.S.. In July, an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier began cooperative exercises with the Indian Navy, “designed to maximize training and interoperability, including air defense.” According to a statement made by the Seventh Fleet of the U.S. Navy, the “operations are designed to provide security throughout the region while building partnerships with friends and allies.” 

It’s no secret that the relationship between the United States and China has been tense for years throughout the Trump presidency, but the U.S.’s recent move to bolster India is being read by many as a strategic move to throw its weight behind China’s biggest rival in the region. Brookings Institution’s director of the India Project Tanvi Madan said, “It was symbolic… signaling to China and others that the U.S. is standing by India.” With the U.S. presidential election right around the corner, President Trump’s need to draw a picture of China as a key rival – as demonstrated by the series of economic, political and diplomatic actions the U.S. has taken against China in the last three years – has social justice advocates claiming that the United States is once again prioritizing military hegemony over criticizing India’s human rights violations. 

As China continues to gain influence over countries in the Indo-Pacific through its Belt and Road Initiative, India’s desire to bolster its defenses is expected. This is a notable shift in strategy for the world’s largest democracy which has typically maintained a non-alignment stance, starting with the India-Pakistan Partition in 1947, where Pakistan very clearly aligned with the U.S. and India continued to receive aid from both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. As China began to take up more of India’s attention, and troubles with Pakistan faded into the background, Richard Fontaine, Senator John McCain’s foreign policy advisor says, “there’s no longer the sense of as much restraint on what India might do with the United States.” This sentiment is seconded by the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, where professor Brahma Chellaney believes, “The direction of U.S.-India relations is clear now — toward closer cooperation.” 

This view is further supported by what Foreign Affairs and the BBC have termed the “bromance” between President Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with Trump promising to act as a “true friend” to India, and Modi tweeting about the “warm conversation” between the two during one of their latest meetings. Key foreign policy and security officials from both sides have also met frequently through the Trump presidency, marked most significantly of course by a Presidential visit to Gujarat, Modi’s home state. Michael Kugelman of The Wilson Center spoke about how in any scenario where the U.S. and India are on the same page, China is the unspoken unifier. "China really looms large in this relationship. You can talk about shared values, the Modi-Trump friendship, but it's really the converging interests that bring the two countries together," he says. "Both countries see China as a concern." 

China’s response to this new dynamic is clear: continue to build alliances and demonstrate that the U.S.’s intimidation tactics will not work. Recent footage from the Chinese government shows Chinese soldiers proclaiming their willingness to die for their country. Coupled with recent military drills being carried out, Steven Lee Myers, writing for The New York Times, claims “they are intended to draw stark red lines for the United States, signaling that China would not shrink from a military clash.” 

China’s antagonism over the United States’ actions is not only about the most recent dalliance with India. The U.S.’s support of Taiwan, which Beijing claims as Chinese territory, and its specific focus on bolstering Taiwan’s defenses by continuing to sell arms to its military, and rumors of a trade agreement also have officials in Beijing worried. Elbridge Colby, who wrote the Trump administration’s national defense strategy, emphasized that “Taiwan is the most important thing from a military and credibility point of view.” According to The New York Times, President Trump has been advised that in order to get re-elected, he must appear tough on China, and this means bringing a seven-decade point of conflict– Taiwan– back to the forefront. In March of this year, President Trump signed the Taipei Act, committing the U.S. to providing assistance to Taiwan to improve its international standing against China’s “bullying tactics”. 

Aside from tensions over Taiwan, the U.S. has made other moves signalling a deterioration of the U.S.-China relationship: a Chinese Consulate was recently closed, and smartphone apps TikTok and WeChat were banned, not to mention the broad import tariffs imposed on Chinese goods and bans against Huawei doing business in the U.S.. Beijing is also facing pushback in Europe as several European nations have limited Huawei’s business in their countries. 

With Chinese media amping up the “wolf warrior spirit” amongst its population, emphasizing the “willingness to use force if pushed”, it is anyone’s guess how these ongoing perceived attacks by the United States will provoke the world’s most populous nation

We will lie on the bed we make
Stephen Ndegwa

A general view of Alemao slums complex in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil March 22, 2020.

 Picture taken March 22, 2020. /VCG

Editor's note: Stephen Ndegwa is a Nairobi-based communication expert, lecturer-scholar at the United States International University-Africa, author and international affairs columnist. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The World Habitat Day (WHD) 2020 being marked today;, October 5, would not have come at a more opportune moment. The coronavirus pandemic has made our procrastination in tackling the problems hindering human development all too apparent.

The theme for this year's WHD, "Housing For All – A Better Urban Future," is aptly captured in the message by the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres: "The urgency of improving living conditions has been brought to the fore by COVID-19, which has devastated the lives of millions in cities. Access to clean water and sanitation, along with social distancing, are key responses to the pandemic. Yet in slums it has proved difficult to implement these measures. This means an increased risk of infection, not only within slums, but in whole cities."

Since January when the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic of global proportions, millions of people hibernated in their homes, many of them in their abodes in towns and cities. In 2018, it was estimated that 4.2 billion people, equal to 55 percent of the world's population, lived in cities.

While the rich have generally been comfortable in their modern homes, it was double jeopardy for the poor. Ironically, most of the upmarket residential places in developing countries are bordered and surrounded by vast slums. The latter are home to more than 828 million people, and counting as millions make their way to towns and cities in search of livelihoods every year. Cities generate about 80 percent of global gross domestic product.

Housing is one of the most important building blocks of people's health, dignity, safety, well-being and inclusion. It is a basic human right that every government needs to honor in its development plan. The sector is covered under Goal 11 of the UN Sustainable Goals, which aims at making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.

Often, cities and towns do not want the rest of the world to see their real picture. Through the media and other marketing channels, cities project rosy narratives in order to attract investors and tourists. But these picture-perfect images have their converse ugly side that authorities wish away.

A volunteer carries donated aid for poor families at the Rocinha slum as the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak continues in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, March 27, 2020. /Reuters

A quarter of all urban residents live in slums and other informal settlements. According to UN Habitat, there are currently one billion people living in overcrowded settlements with inadequate housing, a number that is predicted to reach 1.6 billion people by 2030. Now, to bridge this massive gap means that we must build 96,000 housing units every day. An impossible task, perhaps?

Indeed, the challenge goes further. It is one thing to build the houses, but another to offer efficient services and install adequate facilities that make these structures comfortable. This includes energy, water and sanitation. Secondly, once constructed, how affordable would these houses be to the millions of urban poor currently squeezed in shanties?

The other issue is identifying whose responsibility it is to upgrade housing for the poor in urban centers and cities. The conflict between county or local governments and national governments has led to wastage of both time and resources. But the net of consultation must be cast wider to include all key stakeholders in order to ensure that the numerous interests in the sector are catered for.

Most of the challenges encountered in efforts to modernize human habitats are toughest mainly in the developing world. This is due to the thin spread of finances that is hardly adequate even for the most pressing needs. But a way around this needs to be found, which means that authorities will have to be more creative in the way they make cities the next frontier in human habitat.

Although it has devastated social and economic lives of millions globally, COVID-19 is a silver lining in the search for both urban rejuvenation and growth. It has exposed the social injustice faced by those who now live on the precipice due to loss of livelihoods.

Still, the pandemic has shown that there is still hope for humanity. Simple, kind gestures between neighbors and across the class or economic strata have been invaluable in enhancing the resilience of society. If the solidarity that has arisen between the poor and the rich when faced by an insurmountable challenge like COVID-19 was permanent, there would be a high level of equity in people's standards of living.

As the world works tirelessly towards curbing the pandemic, it is time to address the factors that makes the housing system fragile and unequal to some people and not others. In addition, this is the time to harness the transformative potential of urbanization for the benefit of the planet and its entire population.

Will the referendum result make a difference in the lives of Chileans?

Guy Burton


People during the referendum to decide whether the country should replace its 40-year-old constitution, Chile, October 25, 2020. /Getty Images

Editor's note: Guy Burton is an adjunct professor at Vesalius College, Brussels. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The result of the constitutional referendum in Chile on Sunday was striking. More than three-quarters of voters backed the call for constitutional change. A majority of voters also preferred to have the new constitution drafted by an entirely elected constitutional assembly rather than one that was half elected and half appointed by congress.

But will the result make a substantial difference in the lives of Chileans? That is a key question that will need to be answered as the next stage unfolds. Elections for the constituent assembly are expected to take place by April next year and those elected will have a year to put together a text which will then go to the electorate in April 2022.

A first test will be who the candidates will be. Will it be regular and established politicians who take part or a new and different group of citizens? Here, the experience of other constituent assemblies in Latin America may be a guide, including in Venezuela in 1999, Bolivia in 2006 and Ecuador in 2007.

In all three countries, the assemblies were proposed by recently elected presidents, who saw their support transfer to a majority share of the vote. That made for constitutional texts which were broadly in line with the governments of the day.

By contrast, it is less clear that this will be the case in Chile. The constituent assembly elections in April 2021 will take before the next presidential and parliamentary elections in November. Consequently, rather than a new president lending his or her aura to the constituent assembly elections, Chile's next president may owe much to the wrangling in the assembly and how the public perceives it.

Just as it remains uncertain who will deliberate over the new constitution, it is also difficult to know how the new document can best reflect public opinion. Here it is useful to set Chile's current constitution and public sentiment in context.

Sunday's referendum result marks the culmination of a decades-long campaign by many in Chile, especially for those on the political left. Chile's current constitution was written in 1980 during General Augusto Pinochet's military dictatorship, which overthrew the Socialist president, Salvador Allende, seven years earlier.

The 1980 constitution enshrined the authoritarian bent of the Pinochet regime. It granted strong powers to the president and limited ones for congress and the military had the right to appoint nine senators. The constitution also demonstrated a strong bias in favor of markets, limiting the role of the state and protecting private property.

Given its origin, the 1980 constitution acquired totemic status for many, who saw it as illegitimate. Although opposition to the constitution persisted, the center-left Concertación governments which ran Chile between 1990 and 2010 were able to rub away its worst excesses.

People gather to celebrate the victory of the referendum, in Santiago, Chile, October 25, 2020. /Getty Images


A raft of constitutional amendments was passed after 2000 and the authoritarian nature of the constitution was undermined by the application of democratic rule and government-opposition give and take.

At the same time, the Concertación governments presided over a period of marked economic growth and development in Chile. Both the country and its citizens grew richer and inequality fell, helped in part by some of the government's redistributive measures.

But these advances did not prove enough for many Chileans. Within Latin America, Chile remained more unequal than many and especially so when compared to other wealthier and industrialized countries.

For many Chileans, the burden was felt in the high and growing cost of living. The limited role of the state meant that many had to pay for their children's education or provide for their own healthcare and pensions.

Then, last October, the proposed increase in public transport fares sparked complaints among students which captured wider public frustration and resentment, leading to even larger public protests. In response, the government proposed a constitutional referendum as a way forward. Elections were due to be held in April but were pushed back six months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and movement restrictions.

While Chile's political class has been given a clear steer that the public wants change, it is not clear what that will mean in practice. It will be a challenge to express public frustration and dissatisfaction in what is meant to be a baseline document.

How should Chileans' struggle with the high cost of living and perceived inequality be captured? Should it be captured in a commitment to raising the minimum wage or enabling the state to engage in productive activity? Does it mean the provision of targeted state subsidies or the broader allocation of public funds for certain public services?

Moreover, is a constitution the most appropriate means to capture those demands? By their very nature, constitutions are designed to be documents that are hard to change. If these commitments are made constitutional, how much more difficult will it be to amend them should the country's social and economic circumstances change? Alternately, should demands like these not be debated and introduced through ordinary legislation?

Undoubtedly, some of these issues will be addressed in the coming months. One of the first items that the new constituent assembly will have to set for itself is the subjects it can cover and the procedures to allow for the incorporation of a commitment into the text.

For now though, those details are for another day while a majority of Chileans celebrate a poll result which expresses an end to business as usual.

 

EU gets WTO green light for tariffs on US exports over Boeing

— filed under: Headline, USA, Trade

Boeing

(GENEVA) - The WTO's dispute settlement body gave formal authorisation Monday for the EU to increase duties on U.S. exports worth up to $4 billion, in retaliation for illegal subsidies granted to U.S. aircraft maker Boeing.

The European Commission says it is currently finalising the process, with the involvement of the EU Member States, to be ready to use its retaliation rights in case there is no prospect of bringing the dispute to a mutually beneficial solution in a near future.

The ruling was welcomed by the Commission which said the WTO Dispute Settlement Body confirmed the EU's right to impose countermeasures for illegal subsidies to the American aircraft maker, Boeing. However the EU executive has made clear that its preferred outcome is a negotiated settlement with the U.S.

EC vice-president Valdis Dombrovskis said "we continue to engage intensively with our American counterparts. and I am in regular contact with U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer. In the absence of a negotiated outcome, the EU will be ready to take action in line with the WTO ruling."

The Commission says it will however be ready to use its retaliation rights in case there is no prospect of bringing the dispute to a mutually beneficial solution in a near future.

WTO Appellate Body ruling on US subsidies to Boeing

Public consultation on preliminary list of products in the Boeing case

Preliminary list of products

WTO clears EU request for tariffs on US over Boeing

The EU has been given permission to impose tariffs on the US for its help for Boeing. It's part of a long-running spat in which both sides have accused each other of unfairly subsidizing their respective aviation giants.



The World Trade Organization's (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) on Monday gave approval to European Union (EU) retaliatory tariffs on $4 billion (€3.4 billion) worth of US goods in response to US subsidies for airplane manufacturer Boeing. The EU had sought $8.6 million in tariffs, in response to tariffs imposed by the US tied to European Airbus subsidies last year..

The EU sanctions were originally approved by a WTO auditor on October 13, but needed approval from the trade body's 164 member states.

On Monday, a representative from the WTO in Geneva announced: "WTO members approved the European Union's request for authorization to impose retaliatory measures against the United States for its failure to comply with the WTO ruling regarding US government subsidies for Boeing."

The EU is now expected to place tariffs on US farm equipment and agricultural products such as sweet potatoes, peanuts and tobacco.

Read more: Airbus-Boeing WTO dispute: What you need to know

Change of heart?

The US said it "strongly favors a negotiated resolution of its dispute with the EU over the massive launch aid subsidies it provided to Airbus. The United States has recently provided proposals for a reasonable settlement that would provide a level playing field."

Brussels says it is prepared to negotiate with the US and has no immediate plan to apply the tariffs, but rather seeks leverage to force a negotiated deal with the US that would lead Washington to drop its own punitive tariffs from 2019.

US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, however, claimed the US had cut subsidies to Boeing long ago and threatened further retaliation.

European industry representatives have been pushing Brussels to take quicker and more aggressive action in hopes of finally putting an end to the US tariffs already in place.

Last year, the WTO gave approval to $7.5 billion in US tariffs against the EU for its support of Airbus.

Monday's announcement is the latest development in a trade fight in which the EU and US have accused one another of unfairly subsidizing their respective aviation giants for over 15 years now.

js/msh (AFP, Reuters)

The Secret Hellfire Club and the Hellfire Caves


Image Credit : Zoltan Kuruc

The Hellfire Club was an exclusive membership-based organisation for high-society rakes, that was first founded in London in 1718, by Philip, Duke of Wharton, and several of society’s elites.

Wharton was a powerful Jacobite politician, writer, a wealthy peer, and Grand Master of the Premier Grand Lodge of England who led a double life as a drunkard, a rioter, an infidel and a rakehell (meaning a man who was habituated to immoral conduct such as womanising, and wasting his fortune through acts of gambling and debauchery).

Wharton’s club was considered a satirical “gentleman’s club” (although women are also purported to attend), intended to shock and ridicule religious beliefs through the act of mock religious ceremonies with the supposed president of this club being the devil.


The club came to an end in 1721, due to political maneuvering by Wharton’s enemies pushing through a bill against “horrid impieties”, resulting in Wharton being removed from Parliament and the club being disbanded.

Hellfire Caves – Image Credit : Zoltan Kuruc

The club was reformed by Francis Dashwood, the 11th Baron le Despencer under the name of the Order of the Knights of St Francis (although the club also went under the names of the Brotherhood of St. Francis of Wy, the Order of the Friars of St Francis of Wycombe and the Order of Knights of West Wycombe) around 1746.

Dashwood commissioned the construction of a complex series of tunnels and chalk and flint caverns for the club’s meetings on the Dashwood estate of West Wycombe Park in Buckinghamshire, England. Known today as the Hellfire Caves or the West Wycombe Caves, the complex extends for 0.25 miles beneath the church of St Lawrence and the Dashwood family Mausoleum.

Each chamber is connected by a series of narrow passageways, consisting of the Entrance Hall, the Steward’s Chamber, the Whitehead’s Cave, Lord Sandwich’s Circle, Franklin’s Cave, the Banqueting Hall, the Triangle, the Miner’s Cave, and the Inner Temple, which was accessed by crossing a faux river meant to represent the River Styx (a river in Greek mythology that forms the boundary between Earth and the Underworld).

Hellfire Caves – Image Credit : Zoltan Kuruc

Members of the club included prominent 18th-century figures such as John Montagu (the 4th Earl of Sandwich), William Hogarth (an English painter, printmaker, pictorial satirist, social critic, and editorial cartoonist), John Wilkes (a journalist and politician), and Thomas Potter (a politician and Vice-Treasurer of Ireland).

It has also been claimed that Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a close friend of Dashwood visited the caves on more than one occasion.

Many rumours of black magic, satanic rituals and orgies were in circulation during the life of the club, with the notable English writer Horace Walpole stating that “practice was rigorously pagan: Bacchus and Venus were the deities to whom they almost publicly sacrificed; and the nymphs and the hogsheads that were laid in against the festivals of this new church, sufficiently informed the neighbourhood of the complexion of those hermits.”

Hellfire Caves – Image Credit : Zoltan Kuruc

By the early 1760’s, the club began to decline and would eventually be dissolved, possibly due to Dashwood’s appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer which ended in failure, or him taking a role of greater respectability in society with his elevation as the 11th Baron le Despencer.

Various branches or legacy incarnations of the Hellfire Club continued to carry out meetings, such as the Beggar’s Benison in Scotland which dissolved in the 19th century, and some argued to meet at various historic educational institutions of Ireland and Britain today.

Header Image Credit : Zoltan Kuruc

Cognitive Elements of Language Have Existed for 40 Million Years



Humans are not the only beings that can identify rules in complex language-like constructions – monkeys and great apes can do so, too, a study at the University of Zurich has shown.

Researchers at the Department of Comparative Language Science of UZH used a series of experiments based on an ‘artificial grammar’ to conclude that this ability can be traced back to our ancient primate ancestors.

Language is one of the most powerful tools available to humankind, as it enables us to share information, culture, views and technology. “Research into language evolution is thus crucial if we want to understand what it means to be human,” says Stuart Watson, postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Comparative Language Science of the University of Zurich. Until now, however, little research has been conducted about how this unique communication system came to be.


Identifying connections between words

An international team led by Professor Simon Townsend at the Department of Comparative Language Science of the University of Zurich has now shed new light on the evolutionary origins of language. Their study examines one of the most important cognitive elements needed for language processing – that is, the ability to understand the relationship between the words in a phrase, even if they are separated by other parts of the phrase, known as a “non-adjacent dependency”.

For example, we know that in the sentence “the dog that bit the cat ran away”, it is the dog who ran away, not the cat, even though there are several other words in between the two phrases. A comparison between apes, monkeys and and humans has now shown that the ability to identify such non-adjacent dependencies is likely to have developed as far back as 40 million years ago.

Acoustic signals instead of words

The researchers used a novel approach in their experiments: They invented an artificial grammar, where sequences are formed by combining different sounds rather than words. This enabled the researchers to compare the ability of three different species of primates to process non-adjacent dependencies, even though they do not share the same communication system. The experiments were carried out with common marmosets – a monkey native to Brazil – at the University of Zurich, chimpanzees (University of Texas) and humans (Osnabrück University).

Mistakes followed by telltale looks

First, the researchers taught their test subjects to understand the artificial grammar in several practice sessions. The subjects learned that certain sounds were always followed by other specific sounds (e.g. sound ‘B’ always follows sound ‘A’), even if they were sometimes separated by other acoustic signals (e.g. ‘A’ and ‘B’ are separated by ‘X’). This simulates a pattern in human language, where, for example, we expect a noun (e.g. “dog”) to be followed by a verb (e.g. “ran away”), regardless of any other phrasal parts in between (e.g. “that bit the cat”).

In the actual experiments that followed, the researchers played sound combinations that violated the previously learned rules. In these cases, the common marmosets and chimpanzees responded with an observable change of behavior; they looked at the loudspeaker emitting the sounds for about twice as long as they did towards familiar combinations of sounds. For the researchers, this was an indication of surprise in the animals caused by noticing a ‘grammatical error’. The human test subjects were asked directly whether they believed the sound sequences were correct or wrong.

Common origin of language

“The results show that all three species share the ability to process non-adjacent dependencies. It is therefore likely that this ability is widespread among primates,” says Townsend. “This suggests that this crucial element of language already existed in our most recent common ancestors with these species.” Since marmosets branched off from humanity’s ancestors around 40 million years ago, this crucial cognitive skill thus developed many million years before human language evolved.

UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH