Saturday, November 21, 2020

Violence erupts in Brazil after Carrefour security kills Black man

The death of a Black man at the hands of white supermarket security guards has been compared to George Floyd's death in the US. The man was killed on the eve of Brazil's Black Consciousness Day.


Protests occurred across Brazil on Friday after a Black man died after he was beaten by white security guards at a Carrefour grocery store in Porto Alegre.

A short video captured by a store employee showed one guard restraining the man, Joao Alberto Silveira Freitas, just outside of the supermarket. Another security guard repeatedly struck Freitas' face. Later clips recorded after the initial strikes showed a guard kneeling on Freitas' back.

Black Lives Matter protesters took over several Carrefour supermarkets in Brazil

Protests were held outside several Carrefour stores across Brazil with demonstrators chanting "Black lives matter" and "Carrefour killer." Fires were lit in some stores. Some protesters compared Freitas' death to that of George Floyd, who died while in police custody earlier this year and sparked protests around the world.

"Carrefour's hands are dirty with Black blood," one demonstrator's sign read.

The men who beat Freitas, one of whom the military said was an off-duty military policeman, have been detained and are being investigated for homicide.
Eve of Black Consciousness Day

The beating took place overnight Thursday, on the eve of Black Consciousness Day in Brazil. The day is meant to recognize Black culture in the South American nation.

Eduardo Leite, governor of the state where Porto Alegre is, tweeted his frustration on the day turned sour.

"Unfortunately, on this day in which we should be celebrating those public policies, we come across scenes that leave us all indignant due to the excessive violence that caused the death of a Black citizen at the supermarket," said Leite.

Black and mixed-race people account for about 57% of Brazil's population but are 74% of victims of lethal violence, and 79% of those killed by police, according to the Brazilian Forum on Public Safety, a nongovernmental organization.

Brazilian Vice President Hamilton Mourao told reporters the incident at the Carrefour was unfortunate but denied that it reflected racism.

"Racism doesn't exist in Brazil. That is something they want to import here," said Mourao. "I lived in the United States. There is racism there."

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has also said there is no racism in Brazil.

Watch video 
#BlackLivesMatter: A campaign goes viral

Carrefour in trouble again


Carrefour Brasil, the local unit of Carrefour, released a statement that said it deeply regretted what it called a brutal death. The company also said it has terminated its contract with the security firm whose employees were under investigation for the death.

The French multinational corporation has a checkered past in Brazil. The security that the company had employed was previously accused of violence, predominately against Blacks.

In August, a Carrefour Brasil worker had a heart attack and died on the floor of a store in the northeastern city of Recife. His body stayed on the floor and was covered in umbrellas and cardboard boxes. The store remained open for business until paramedics arrived.

A security guard at a store in the state of Sao Paulo killed a street dog with a metal bar in 2018. The incident sparked an outcry on social media in the country.

kbd/sms (AP, Reuters,AFP)
Belarus: Thousands attend funeral of killed protester Raman Bandarenka

The death of a protester has inflamed tensions in Belarus, with thousands praising the 31-year-old as a hero at his funeral. His last message — "I'm going out" — became a new slogan of the protest movement.



Several thousand mourners paid their respects to opposition activist Raman Bandarenka at a church ceremony in Minsk on Friday, decrying the death of the 31-year-old professional soldier who they believe lost his life in an altercation with Belarus security forces.

The attendants formed a half-kilometer (550 yards) line stretching from the church until the coffin was carried out. They occasionally chanted "We will not forget, we will not forgive," and "Rama, you are a hero."

The mourners also chanted "I'm going out," the last message sent by Bandarenka to a group chat on a messaging app before he was killed.


"Raman Banderenko was beaten to death by the Belarus police in his own yard" the poster reads

According to authorities, Bandarenka got into a fight with a group of civilians while intoxicated. He sustained brain damage and passed away in a hospital last week. Witnesses, however, say Bandarenka was attacked and detained while confronting a group of people wearing civilian clothes, after the group came to a local playground to remove red-and-white ribbons symbolizing the protest movement.

Protesters believe the men were members of the security forces, and that Bandarenka was beaten to death. The news of his passing enraged the protesters who have been demanding strongman Alexander Lukashenko step down since August. At least two other protesters have so far lost their lives, with many others missing.


HOW FLOWER POWER CAN OVERTURN A SYSTEM

Flowers for a new Belarus
Reacting to the police's brutal crackdown on demonstrators following the contested reelection of longtime President Alexander Lukashenko, Belarusian women adopted powerful symbols of peace to pursue the protests. Dressed in white and bearing flowers, they marched and formed solidarity chains in the streets of Minsk, the country's capital. Flowers have often served as a revolutionary symbol. PHOTOS 12345678910


What was the government's reaction?

The protesters' narrative was boosted by a leaked medical report that showed Bandarenka did not have alcohol in his blood. The authorities responded by detaining the medical worker who allegedly leaked the report and a journalist who published it.

President Lukashenko has expressed his condolences to Bandarenka's family a day after his death and urged people not to politicize the issue, while also citing the reports that claimed the soldier was drunk. On the day of the funeral, Lukashenko pledged that he would unveil new information regarding the death next week.

He told a reporter to "wait a little bit, we will say everything next week. Trust me, it will be very interesting," the leader said without providing details.

dj/aw (Reuters, AFP, Interfax)

India launches initiative to end manual scavenging by 2021

India has struggled to enforce laws banning the unsafe practice. Under the new measures, sewer and septic tank cleaning will be mechanized, with funds directly transferred to sanitation workers to buy cleaning machines.




On Thursday, the Indian government announced a slew of measures to end the discriminatory and hazardous practice of manual scavenging by August 2021. Manual scavenging is the practice of removing human excrement from toilets, septic tanks or sewers by hand.

The measures are part of the Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan (Clean India initiative) launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government — and seek to enforce laws that have banned the practice.

Hardeep Singh Puri, India's Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs, launched the "Safaimitra Suraksha Challenge" on Thursday, coinciding with World Toilet Day.

Under the campaign, sewers and septic tanks in 243 cities will be mechanized and a helpline created to register complaints if manual scavenging is reported. Cities which reach the end result will receive prize money.

Durga Shanker Mishra, the ministry's secretary, went a step further and announced that terminologies would be changed to support the government's decision to eradicate manual scavenging.

"We have instructed that the word 'manhole' is not to be used anymore and only 'machine-hole' is to be used from now on," said Mishra.

Meanwhile, the Social Justice and Empowerment Ministry said that it would directly transfer funds to 'sanitation workers' to buy cleaning machines, instead of contractors or municipal corporations.

"We want the workers to own these machines so that these can be used by the municipalities when there is a requirement," said R Subrahmanyam, the secretary of the ministry.
Outlawed, but with little impact

India began outlawing the employment of manual scavengers in 1993, expanding the law in 2013 — but little impact has been seen on the ground, as hundreds of people continued to be pushed into the profession.

Scavenging is mostly carried out by a sub-group of the Dalits, an outcast community also known as "untouchables" within India's ancient system of caste hierarchies.

"Untouchables" are often impoverished, shunned by society and forbidden from touching Indians of other castes, or even their food.

In 2013, India expanded the definition of manual scavengers to include people employed to clean septic tanks, ditches and railway tracks — but the practice continued.

Last year, government data showed 110 people died while cleaning sewers and septic tanks.

Concerns over implementation

Indian activist, Bezwada Wilson, told local news channel NDTV that the current move by Modi's government was a welcome step, but not much was known about the contents of the initiative.

"Who will receive the machines? Who will monitor? Who will be held accountable for the implementation? How will they give training?" Wilson said. "As far as I know, nothing has been worked out yet."

"The biggest issue is, the government has not yet identified the people involved in manual scavenging [...] Even though mechanization of sewer and septic cleaning is very much needed, the way this initiative has been launched seems to be a hasty act," he added.

The move also comes at a time when the Modi government is facing severe criticism for its treatment of Dalits, particularly following the recent death of a 19-year-old Dalit woman. The woman was brutally assaulted and gang raped by four four upper caste men in the state of Uttar Pradesh and later died in hospital.

At least 10 Dalit women are raped in India per day, and their vulnerability to rape has increased by 44% in the last 10 years, according to a report by the National Crime Records Bureau of India.


DW RECOMMENDS

Gruesome rape in India’s Hathras reveals the plight of lower castes

Members of the Valmiki caste play an important role in many areas, disposing off dirt and muck. But their low caste status makes them vulnerable to crimes like the recent rape of a 19-year-old in northern India.


'India lacks the political will to end manual scavenging'

The Indian government banned manual scavenging in 1993 but the practice is widespread in the country. Bezwada Wilson, this year's recipient of the Ramon Magsaysay award, tells DW there is not enough pressure to end it.


Two Dalit children beaten to death in India for defecating in open

Two children were beaten to death in central India for defecating in the open. The killings underline the violence sometimes unleashed to enforce Prime Minister Narendra Modi's flagship cleanliness drive.
Dutch reporter hacks EU defense ministers' meeting

A Dutch journalist took advantage of a security blunder to hack into a video call with EU defense ministers. "I'm sorry for interrupting your conference, I'll be leaving," the reporter told the EU's top diplomat.

EU meetings -like this leaders' conference - have been taking place in video conferences due to the coronavirus

EU defense ministers and the bloc's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell had a surprise during a supposedly confidential video conference on Friday when a reporter for Dutch broadcaster RTL Nieuws gained access to the call.

The reporter, Daniel Verlaan, used information from a Twitter post by Dutch Defense Minister Ank Bijleveld. The minister had published a photo of herself working from home while taking part in the conference. The post includes a photo of the minister's laptop screen with her EU counterparts visible. Another picture, which has since been removed, showed five digits of a six-digit pin needed to gain access to the call.

A Twitter user flagged the information to RTL Nieuws, prompting Verlaan to try hacking the meeting. In his own Twitter post, Verlaan said the code could be guessed "with a few tries."

What did Borrell say to the reporter?

The video published by the broadcaster shows EU's Josep Borrell asking "Who are you?" and noting the call has been "intercepted."

"Now I have to stop because we are working at a public square," Borrell continued before addressing the reporter again.

"How are you?" he asked.

"Hi, I'm fine, how are you," the journalist responded.

Borrell then asked if the reporter was aware that he was "jumping into a secret conference," as laughter is heard in the background.

"Yes, I'm sorry, I'm a journalist from the Netherlands," Verlaan replied. "I'm sorry for interrupting your conference. I'll be leaving here."

Borrell then said the breach was a criminal offense, "So you better shut off quickly," as the reporter replies with a "Yes. Bye, bye."

It was not immediately clear if Verlaan would face legal consequences.
What was the official reaction?

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has since reacted to the security blunder with a jab at his defense minister.

"This shows once again that ministers need to realize how careful you have to be with Twitter," Rutte said in the Hague.

An official with the Dutch Defense Ministry described the incident as a "stupid mistake."

Separately, an EU diplomatic source told the AFP news agency the meeting was cut short immediately after the reporter gained access.

"There may have been laughter, but the incident is considered as very serious," the official said.

dj/sms (AFP, dpa)
A Plan to Save Wildlife May Have Done More Harm Than Good

Banning the trade of vulnerable species sometimes makes them more vulnerable
.

THE ATLANTIC NOV 2020

JIMIN LAI / AFP / GETTY

Customs officials in Singapore made a grisly discovery in April 2019 at a port on the island’s southern coast. Inside shipping containers supposedly transporting frozen beef from Nigeria to Vietnam, they found bloodstained sacks stuffed with 13 tons of scales stripped illegally from pangolins—scaly, anteater-like mammals endemic to Africa and Asia. The seizure, worth about $38.7 million, is thought to be the largest bust of pangolin products globally in recent years

People hunt pangolins for their meat, considered a delicacy in Asia, and for their scales, which are used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat ills such as arthritis. All eight pangolin species are now vulnerable or endangered, and in 2016 more than 180 nations banned most cross-border commercial trade in them. They did so under a major international agreement called the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, commonly referred to as CITES. Trade bans on endangered species are the most severe restriction under CITES, which also limits trade in species that are at risk of overexploitation but not yet endangered, requiring permits for their export.

Conservation organizations hailed the pangolin ban as a big win in the war against the multibillion-dollar wildlife trade. But some scientists and wildlife trade experts worry that CITES bans—in this case and others—may be backfiring, by encouraging rather than suppressing trade in a species. “As products become rarer, prices and demand increase. You just hit species all the way into extinction,” says Brett Scheffers, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Florida. Poorly policed trade controls can allow illegal trade to flourish, adds Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes, a sustainability economist specializing in the wildlife trade at the University of Oxford.

In 1977, for example, an international trade ban on the black rhino led to a tenfold increase in the price of rhino horn over a two-year period, spurring poaching and driving populations to extinction in some areas. And trade restrictions that began in 2013 on species of rosewood trees helped make the precious timber the most trafficked group of endangered species in the world.

It’s too soon to know if the same kind of thing is happening with pangolins, but there are troubling signs, says Dan Challender, a conservation scientist who works with ‘t Sas-Rolfes at Oxford and specializes in pangolins and wildlife trade policy: Seizures of pangolin parts in high volumes appear to be on the uptick.

There’s no disagreement among researchers that the wildlife trade is a major contributor to the loss of biodiversity worldwide. Where they disagree is over what the countries that are signed up to CITES should do about it.

Many conservation groups say that CITES is one of the best tools they have—letting signatory nations ban international trade for species that are already endangered and set trade limits for species that are at risk due to commercial activities. But trade experts like Sabri Zain, director of policy for TRAFFIC, a nonprofit group working to make the wildlife trade more sustainable, say that CITES rests too heavily on bans when it’s meant to help ensure that the wildlife trade meets people’s needs while also safeguarding nature.

“When you talk to people about CITES, the first thing that comes to their mind is trade bans,” Zain says. “But the real heart of CITES is sustainability.” Critics also argue that countries don’t adequately apply science to assess whether CITES bans and quotas will work the way they’re intended—or will make matters worse by sparking illegal trade. All these difficulties have left CITES gasping for breath, says ‘t Sas-Rolfes. “CITES,” he says, “is a terminally ill patient that is in need of serious attention.”

CITES was born in the mid-1970s out of public concern that countries weren’t adequately protecting rare and threatened species. The aim was to encourage governments to restrict imports from nations that lacked protections for plants and animals that are on the “red list” of threatened species as identified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the globe’s leading authority on the state of the natural world. Today, CITES is a voluntary agreement among 182 nations, as well as the European Union; it protects more than 38,000 species of plants and animals to varying degrees.


To safeguard a species under CITES, a country makes its case for protection—to either ban or limit trade—at the CITES meeting held every two to three years. If two-thirds of member nations vote to approve the proposal, each country then creates laws and systems to implement it. If trade is restricted rather than banned, countries will dole out a limited number of trade permits at levels deemed sustainable for safeguarding a species. Typically, trade restrictions are applied first—but if they fail to help populations recover, countries can propose bans.

Clearly, action is needed. Roughly a million species are threatened with extinction, according to a major international study published last year. Researchers found that trade and personal use of species by people is the second leading driver of these extinction threats, behind only habitat destruction.

The devastating impact on global diversity from the harvesting of wild animals and plants makes CITES “one of the most important available tools to address the extinction crisis,” said Mark Jones, head of policy at the conservation group Born Free, and Alice Stroud, director of Africa policy at Born Free USA, in a statement to Knowable Magazine. Once countries restrict or ban trade in a species, that species becomes a high priority for conservation in its native country, they wrote.A Hong Kong Customs officer stands next to seized endangered-species products, including elephant ivory tusks, pangolin scales, and shark fins during a press conference (Isaac Lawrence / AFP / Getty).

In a briefing note, the CITES Secretariat pointed to successes such as the recovery of the pirarucu: the world’s largest scaled freshwater fish, which can stretch more than three meters and weigh 220 kilograms. Pirarucu populations plummeted in the Amazon basin in the late 1960s due to overfishing. Following CITES trade restrictions in 1975, community-led conservation and monitoring programs helped the giant fish bounce back in some areas.

And at a meeting last year, CITES members agreed to relax a 50-year-old trade ban on an Argentine population of the delicately featured vicuña (Vicugna vicugna)—a cousin of the camel that is prized for its wool—after community-led conservation efforts had helped the species back on its feet. CITES members also agreed that—as a result of conservation and captive breeding programs—American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) populations in Mexico had recovered sufficiently to allow some trade, which had been banned since 1975.

But bans and trade restrictions don’t always work as intended. For example, a 2010 trade ban on critically endangered European eels (Anguilla anguilla)—driven by culinary demand from China and Japan—hasn’t helped their chances of survival, recent findings show. In 2019, an international anti-trafficking operation announced that illegal fishing is now a major factor in European eel declines, with up to 350 million eels smuggled from Europe to Asia each year.

And legal trade in the tiny Kleinmann’s tortoise (Testudo kleinmanni) skyrocketed in 1994, the year before a ban took effect: Some 2,800 individuals were sold, representing half of the species’ total estimated adult population.

Critics say that part of the problem is that for many species, long-term data on populations are lacking—so that countries can only take a best guess at whether a species is in trouble and, if so, whether that’s due to trade. What’s more, the critics add, countries and CITES administrators fail to thoroughly analyze how bans or restrictions might affect trade in the species. An analysis by Challender published in April 2019 in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment found that proposals to ban trade under CITES commonly fail to examine markets for wildlife in detail. Of the 17 proposals that were scheduled for a vote at last August’s meeting, including ones for Brazil’s riverside swallowtail butterfly (Parides burchellanus) and the African elephant (Loxodonta africana), Challender found that all but one lacked detailed trade analyses.

The CITES Secretariat said in a statement that the treaty’s administrators do collect data from countries on legal imports and exports, and for some iconic animals they have established more elaborate monitoring systems. The most sophisticated of these tracks the illegal killing of elephants and analyzes illegal trade. When wildlife rangers around the world find elephant carcasses, for example, they establish the cause of death and report the information to the CITES program that monitors the illegal killing of elephants. The information is included in a database and analyzed to help keep an eye on poaching and trends in illegal trade.

But Challender argues that this isn’t enough. Decisions to tighten trade, he says, need a comprehensive assessment of the likely consequences of doing so—including information on market factors such as retail prices, sales volumes, consumer preferences, and social and cultural attitudes to the consumption of wildlife. And when the data suggest that outright bans or severe trade restrictions won’t work, those who would safeguard wildlife should look to other creative solutions. “A trade ban may feel intuitively positive, but it’s difficult to predict the outcome for species,” he says.

Complicating matters are disagreements over how to best safeguard a species from extinction while balancing its importance to some people’s livelihoods.

Groups such as Born Free, which prioritizes animal welfare, doubt that wildlife trade could ever be sustainable or thus helpful to conservation. Legal trade creates opportunities to launder specimens obtained illegally, say Jones and Stroud. For example, ivory products from legal and illegal sources were sold side by side in China prior to the country’s domestic ban on ivory trade in 2017.

But some wildlife-trade analysts note that sustainable trade provides a livelihood for people in many communities, and constitutes big business in countries like China. Banning or restricting trade when there’s little evidence to suggest that tighter controls may help a species, they say, can harm local communities and shift countries’ limited conservation funds away from neglected species.

“From our perspective, a [trade ban] is more a sign of conservation failure rather than a goal to strive for,” Zain says. A ban, he adds, shows that previous efforts to restrict trade through limited export permits failed to help a species’ population recover.

Zain wants to see more effort put into making trade restrictions work for species by better assessing their populations and how much trade a given population can handle. If those additional efforts fail, countries could then consider a ban.

Representatives from CITES acknowledged that legal wildlife trade is essential for the livelihoods of many local people, but said that the type of extensive data collection advocated by Challender would be too time-consuming and expensive if done for every species under threat. Still, they added, the convention has made improvements. Since 2017, it has required countries to report data on illegal trade garnered from seizures and other violations. Member countries have contracted the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime to develop a database of countries’ illegal trade to make data analysis easier; the office has produced two detailed global reports, the most recent in July of this year.

Many experts believe that CITES has a key role to play, but they fear that the wildlife trade is too big and complex for CITES to manage alone. And the international marketplace in wildlife—legal and illicit—stands to grow in the future, Scheffers says. Currently, more than 7,600 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles are traded globally, and Scheffers predicts that another 4,000 or more could be traded in the future. It’s not clear that CITES alone can cope with the scale of the problem.

So what is the answer? In a paper in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, ‘t Sas-Rolfes discusses a range of measures beyond CITES that he thinks could make the treaty more effective.

One key tool is local detection of illegal activity, courtesy of new geospatial technologies, in order to catch more poachers. An example is the Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool, developed in 2011 and now in use in more than 60 countries in Africa, Asia, South America, and the Caribbean. Rangers can input data onto handheld devices as they patrol. The software takes data on areas surveyed, snares removed, and arrests made, and converts that information into maps. It also lets rangers take photos for evidence and identification; the software tags them with time and place stamps.

The data are updated in real time, helping connect rangers in the field to command centers elsewhere, aiding operations as they happen. And knowing where poaching and smuggling has previously occurred can help rangers better plan patrols and improve enforcement, the technology’s creators say. They report that the software
has saved rangers time and helped operations run more smoothly. That has reportedly contributed to a 67 percent increase in patrols at protected areas in Nigeria managed by the Wildlife Conservation Society—and a 71 percent reduction in gorilla hunting there.

A more novel strategy is the development of “synthetic” alternatives to illicitly traded animal products, such as rhino horn and pangolin scales. Introducing cheaper substitutes for wildlife products can drive down prices and reduce illegal harvesting, studies suggest. Researchers have had some success making biofabricated horn from horsehair; it’s reportedly identical to wild rhino horn. But that product isn’t yet on the market, so its acceptance—and thus, any conservation benefits—remains to be seen.

In a similar vein, Conservation X Labs, a technology company in Washington, D.C., that works on solutions to conservation challenges, hopes to develop synthetic pangolin scales as a substitute for the wild-caught product. Alex Dehgan, the company’s co-founder and chief executive, says the project is still in very early stages.

Another approach—and one that’s controversial—is to raise animals such as lions and bears in captivity to help satisfy consumer demand for wildlife products while protecting wild populations. Such wildlife-farming initiatives have had mixed results. Researchers report that South Africa, for example, has legally exported farmed lion parts to Southeast Asia and China to replace the use of wild large cats for tiger wines and health tonics. But that program has also been widely criticized for poor animal-welfare standards, and wildlife-conservation organizations argue that the practice provides cover for illegal trade. “A legal trade removes the stigma attached to wildlife-product consumption and increases demand,” Jones and Stroud say.

CITES would also have more teeth if its efforts were linked with other international conservation agreements, Scheffers says. He suggests a partnership with the United Nations Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. This would help foster initiatives that support the forest-dwelling people who depend on the wildlife trade for their livelihoods. Local people who are directly affected by CITES rules struggle to get their views and experiences heard in CITES decision-making, Scheffers says; for him and some other experts, this is among the convention’s biggest flaws.

Indeed, ‘t Sas-Rolfes says, for conservation efforts to be effective, they need to involve “the people who have skin in the game on the ground.” Early findings from one of his research projects suggest that governments that encourage participation from local communities are more successful in conserving wildlife and biodiversity. More governments should encourage participation from local communities at CITES meetings, he says—and the meetings should give local people more time and space to express their views. CITES will also struggle to achieve its goals unless it gets better data, Scheffers says.

Still, although CITES has its problems, even its critics aren’t ready to abandon the program just yet.

“With all its flaws and faults,” Zain says, “it’s really the only tool out there.”

This post appears courtesy of Knowable.


The Tragedy of a Ruined Telescope

One of the world’s most beloved observatories is being demolished before its time.
MARINA KOREN NOVEMBER 19, 2020
RICARDO ARDUENGO / AFP / GETTY

One of the most powerful telescopes in the world is on the brink of collapse.

Arecibo, a giant radio observatory nestled in the lush mountains of Puerto Rico, did some of the dreamiest work in astronomy. But it was forced to stop operations this year after suffering unprecedented damage, and officials now believe that it is beyond repair. Instead of trying to fix it, they’re going to tear it down.

The trouble began in August. A metal support cable weighing thousands of pounds slipped out of its socket and plummeted into the cavernous, 1,000-foot-wide radio dish in the middle of the night. The cable, installed in the 1990s, was considered fairly new for an observatory that began operations in 1963, and the incident confounded Arecibo’s stewards. The cable “definitely should not have failed in the way it did,” Ashley Zauderer, the Arecibo program director at the National Science Foundation,which owns the telescope, said during a press conference today.

By the time the sun rose the next day, the telescope was transformed. The great Arecibo, where the fictional astronomer Ellie Arroway scanned the cosmos for unexplainable phenomena in Contact—and where countless real astronomers did the same—now resembled a crumbled set from an apocalyptic disaster movie.
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA

Officials were hopeful they could repair the damage, and outlined a plan. But earlier this month, just days before engineers were scheduled to try to stabilize the telescope, another piece of hardware came smashing into the dish. A main cable, one of the originals installed when the observatory was built, had snapped, causing even more damage. Engineers had recently inspected the cable, and though they saw that some of its exterior wires had torn, they thought it was strong enough to hang on. “It was just not seen as an immediate threat, and I don’t think anyone understood that clearly the cable had deteriorated,” Zauderer said. The gut punch is that this main cable was scheduled to be replaced this year.

The Arecibo Observatory faces an “uncontrolled catastrophic collapse,” Ralph Gaume, the director of the astronomy division at the NSF, told reporters this morning. The structure is so unsteady that it’s too dangerous for engineers to inspect it up close. “According to engineering assessments, even attempts at stabilization or testing the cables could result in accelerating the catastrophic failure,” Gaume said. Engineers fear that more cables could break and crash into the dish.

Arecibo has provided observations for discoveries within the solar system and well beyond. It is considered a landmark in the field of SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, and one of the best spots for studying potentially hazardous asteroids near Earth.

Over the years, Arecibo has built a reputation as a resilient institution; it has faced danger and damage, but it has always endured. In its lifetime, it has survived earthquakes and storms, including the hurricane that devastated Puerto Rico in 2017, which damaged some of the dish. This year, a month before the first cable failure presaged Arecibo’s downfall, the observatory weathered a tropical storm in silence and then powered up as soon as the skies cleared, ready to chase an asteroid as it zoomed past Earth. Even after the second cable broke this month, officials wanted badly to save the telescope. “It’s just too important of a tool for the advancement of science,” Francisco Cordova, the observatory’s director, said at the time. The expectation was that Arecibo would bounce back yet again.


Engineers are now working to quickly formulate a plan to demolish the telescope before it collapses on its own. Arecibo’s demise is a different fate than astronomers are used to. Hardware of all sorts ages and breaks—Hubble, another famed telescope, is operating with fewer working parts than it launched with 30 years ago. But it is unusual to wreck an observatory because you have no other choice, and so unexpectedly too. Engineers have deliberately destroyed spacecraft before, such as Cassini, which plummeted into the atmosphere of Saturn, and Galileo, which met a similar end on Jupiter, but those goodbyes were planned. Scientists had the chance to make their final observations and close up shop. The spacecraft were running out of fuel, and soon their scientific instruments would fall silent. Their missions were over. Arecibo’s was not.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

2020 Came for One of Earth’s Most Famous Telescopes

The Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico suffered unprecedented damage this week, the latest in a series of recent misfortunes.

MARINA KOREN AUGUST 12, 2020


If the name Arecibo sounds familiar, it is probably because you’ve seen Contact, the 1997 movie adaptation of Carl Sagan’s sci-fi novel of the same name. Dr. Ellie Arroway works at the Arecibo Observatory, scanning the skies for mysterious radio signals from faraway stars. In one scene, she gazes at the cavernous 1,000-foot radio dish, nestled in lush mountains, under a clear, blue sky.

The real Arecibo Observatory, built inside a natural sinkhole in Puerto Rico, is just as breathtaking as it looks in the movies, and it has provided countless observations to many real astronomers since it began operating in 1963. Over the years, Arecibo has produced a trove of scientific discoveries inside the solar system and beyond. It is one of the most powerful telescopes in the world. Arecibo is where the field of SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, began in earnest, with visionaries who believed that someday we would make that triumphant first contact. And it can’t catch a break.

The telescope’s latest mishap unfolded earlier this week, in the middle of the night. A metal support cable snapped and fell into the dish. The force of the impact ripped a 100-foot-long gash in the aluminum. The mesh of steel cables supporting the massive dish broke too, dropping debris on the grass below.

“We have seen nothing like this at Arecibo before,” Zenaida Gonzalez Kotala, a spokesperson for the University of Central Florida, one of the institutions that operates the observatory, told me. Engineers don’t know yet what caused the cable to break. For now, the telescope has paused observations.

Read: Waiting for a signal from Arecibo

It might be tempting to react to this photograph in the way many of us have responded recently to bits of bad news against the backdrop of the pandemic: Really, 2020? You couldn’t leave Arecibo alone? But Arecibo has experienced its share of disasters, large and small. In its efforts to survey the cosmos and uncover worlds beyond imagination, the observatory has been repeatedly derailed by the most earthly of obstacles. Earth is the only home we’ve got in the universe, but sometimes the planet can really ruin the view.

The trials that Arecibo has experienced over the years sound almost biblical in their proportions. In September 2017, Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico, knocking out power across the island for months. The observatory famous for once broadcasting a radio message into the cosmos intended for any intelligent civilizations fell silent. During the storm, an antenna suspended over the observatory fell and punctured the dish, tearing a hole in the aluminum. But the observatory was back up and running within a week, powered by generators.

The hurricane struck at a moment when Arecibo’s future seemed more uncertain than ever. The National Science Foundation, which owns Arecibo, was already considering passing the observatory off to someone else so it could focus—and spend money on—other, new projects. Some feared the hurricane damage would make the NSF pull the plug, but the foundation eventually negotiated an agreement with a trio of institutions to take over operations, and astronomers around the world sighed in relief.

Then, in January of this year, the earthquakes came. The tremors, some as strong as 6.4 magnitude, made observations impossible, and no one was allowed on-site. The dish wasn’t damaged, not like it was after an earthquake in 2014, but the observatory was forced to stop operations until the shaking from nearly a dozen quakes subsided.

The coronavirus pandemic has prevented astronomers from visiting Arecibo, but the telescope can be operated remotely, so the work continued. Even in the middle of a plague, Arecibo found itself facing more natural disasters. An asteroid that astronomers wanted to observe zoomed past Earth just as Tropical Storm Isaias struck Puerto Rico in July. Arecibo went quiet as the storm approached, then leapt into action as soon as it passed. Researchers managed to study the asteroid for two and a half hours, just enough time to learn about its shape and orbit.


When the cable fell this week, Arecibo was still recovering from Hurricane Maria. Even three years after the storm, although the structural damage had been repaired, technicians were still in the careful process of recalibrating the dish to restore its sensitivity to high-frequency radio waves. “That takes a lot of time,” Abel Méndez, an astrobiologist who directs Arecibo’s Planetary Habitability Laboratory, told me. “You can still use the observatory, but it won’t be as sensitive as before." Now they will have to begin the effort anew.

When Méndez saw the photo of the latest damage, he was in disbelief. He had used the telescope just last week to observe a favorite target, Barnard’s star, one of the stars closest to Earth. Officials don’t know how long Arecibo will remain out of commission, and when it ultimately recovers, the star will still be there. But some other targets will have come and gone. The outage may prove most debilitating for astronomers who use the observatory to detect near-Earth asteroids. Three years ago, when Arecibo was struggling to rebound from Hurricane Maria, other observatories around the world were scrambling to observe the first-known object to ever come from another solar system, the asteroid called ‘Oumuamua, as it raced past Earth. “We missed that opportunity,” Méndez told me.

Méndez believes Arecibo will recover from the latest setback, just as it always has. The observatory has proven its resilience, and it should have a long career of making cameos in sci-fi movies ahead of it.

“It’s frustrating,” Méndez says, but “I always see this as, Okay, stop for a moment, but we will be back soon. It’s not like I feel that it’s doomed.”


MARINA KOREN is a staff writer at The Atlantic.

Europe’s Blind Spot: The Movement Against Corruption in Bulgaria

Radosveta Vassileva

NOVEMBER 2020  Green European Journal

The people of Bulgaria have been on the streets protesting against endemic government corruption since July. Meanwhile, leading European politicians continue to pretend that everything is fine. We spoke to legal scholar and activist Radosveta Vassileva about the state of democracy in Bulgaria, the anti-corruption protests, and the hopes for a progressive alternative.

Green European Journal: Protests that began in July were triggered by a police raid on President Rumen Radev’s office but the underlying reason is said to be endemic corruption. 

Can you tell us more about the protests?

Radosveta Vassileva: There have been over 100 days of protests since the presidential office was raided by armed personnel and two presidential advisors arrested on obscure charges. For many Bulgarians, this was the last drop in a sea of corruption scandals. From a constitutional perspective, it was a violation of the principle of the separation of powers, as well as the principle of presidential immunity guaranteed. The president is a member of the opposition, and critical of Prime Minister Boyko Borissov. Pro-government media have indicated that the prosecutor’s office was trying to pave the way for the president’s impeachment.

The day after the raid, people spontaneously started gathering in the streets to express their support for the rule of law. People came from across the political spectrum, left-wingers and right-wingers uniting against endemic corruption. Much has been achieved in these first 100 days. For the first time in a long while, international media is interested in events in Bulgaria: Der Spiegel, Le Monde, La Repubblica, and Politico, among others, are criticising Borissov and calling out Bulgaria as a mafia state.

Even though people expect legal consequences, these days citizens are more interested in prevention. They want to know how we can curtail corruption on this scale in future.

In what way is corruption endemic in Bulgaria? Is it concentrated at the highest level or do people experience it in their daily lives?

We see both kinds but the true shock is the scale of high-level corruption. Bulgaria has been permanently shaken by corruption scandals, involving among others the prime minister and the prosecutor’s office. Since Borissov came to power in 2009, one of the most prominent scandals was “Yaneva Gate”. Two senior judges were recorded discussing how they receive orders from the prosecutor’s office, the Prime Minister Borissov, and other politicians regarding how to handle cases. It was clear evidence that there is no separation of powers. Several corruption scandals have implicated Borissov himself: he was investigated for money laundering in Spain, he was recorded boasting about instructing the prosecutor’s office to charge particular people and raid their businesses, and pictures of his bedroom showing exorbitant amounts of cash and gold were leaked (experts estimated the equivalent of 1 million euros in the picture). I could also mention the abuse of EU funds. In the “Guest House Gate” scandal, it was revealed that politicians and their relatives were using structural development money to build luxury houses. The prosecutor’s office is a political puppet and pretends that nothing is going on.

So far there are no consequences?

Not even an investigation. Even though people expect legal consequences, these days citizens are more interested in prevention. They want to know how we can curtail corruption on this scale in future.

Why is the prosecutor’s office so influential?

The prosecutor’s office has excessive powers and an entirely vertical structure: all decisions depend on the top. It is a Soviet model that has barely been reformed since the Communist era. It is easy for a serving prosecutor general to abuse their power and there is no accountability mechanism. The magnitude of this problem was revealed by the brutal murder of Prosecutor Nikolay Kolev in 2002 after he challenged the prosecutor general’s authority. This crime has not been prosecuted; the murderers were never found. Following the decision in Kolevi v Bulgaria by the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe has been insisting on an independent investigation into his murder and a reform of the prosecutors’ office to introduce checks and balances and accountability.

This superstructure is one of the greatest rule of law challenges in Bulgaria. But the Supreme Judicial Council is also problematic. This body is responsible for the election, appointment and promotion of all prosecutors, investigators, and judges. But the people it promotes are always convenient candidates for the prosecutor general. Meanwhile, the two highest ranking judges – the presidents of the two supreme courts for cassation and administration – are technically elected by prosecutors, but members of the council elected by the parliament form the majority in this body.

Where does Borissov’s political support come from?

Since Borissov’s Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB) party took power, it has doubled the size of the public administration. Many people that support Borissov are happy about these jobs and they form his base. Many people also do not see an alternative. The biggest opposition party, the Bulgarian Socialist Party, is the direct successor of the Bulgarian Communist Party. The memory of communism is still fresh in the country, and its legacy is unacceptable for many voters. Borissov is seen as a right-winger, even if his policies and rhetoric swing between far right and left.


Voting buying is a major issue in every election. Journalists find and even interview people who openly admit that they have sold their votes.

GERB and its allies implemented a crackdown on human rights and freedoms in violation of international conventions, encouraged xenophobia, especially against the already marginalised Roma minority, and propagated intolerance towards the LGBT community. At the same time, GERB doubled public sector employment and relies on left-populist strategies to maintain popularity, such as blaming the rich for the country’s problems, giving pensioners a 25 euro bonus, and claiming that a managed economy is a panacea for Bulgaria’s economic turmoil. Many of GERB’s members, including Borissov, were formerly members of the Communist Party. Borissov was the personal bodyguard of Bulgaria’s last Communist leader, Todor Zhivkov, after he was overthrown.

Borissov is also suspected of electoral fraud. Data published by the Eurobarometer survey shows that many Bulgarians do not trust elections.[1] Voting buying is a major issue in every election. Journalists find and even interview people who openly admit that they have sold their votes. “Dead souls” or phantom voters are also problem, deceased people who are registered and reported as having cast a vote. Experts estimates that they might make up 18 per cent of the electoral roll.

Why is there no EU response to systemic electoral fraud?

Borissov is a valued member of the European People’s Party and Bulgaria is of strategic importance to the EU due to its location. Bulgaria borders Turkey and Turkey scares people in the EU, because they associate it with migration and trafficking. EU politicians believe that Borissov can control these threats.

[…] once a country is an EU member, there are no consequences for non-compliance.

On paper, there are efforts to strengthen the rule of law in Bulgaria through the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM).[2] When Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU, they did not fulfil the accession criteria. This mechanism was supposed to put them on track but, sadly, it has been hijacked. The latest reports do not correspond to reality and portray Borissov and his reforms in a very positive light. Various parts of civil society have criticised the EU reports, but Bulgaria is a small country with a different language and alphabet so this criticism does not necessarily reach Brussels.

What is the problem with the EU’s mechanism?

The mechanism was a priori badly designed, and maybe the Eurocrats don’t even have the capacity to evaluate progress. The Commission usually focuses on technical, and less political issues, such as the workload in courts, the judicial inspectorate, and capacity building through anti-corruption strategies and legislation. If you set the bar low, it is easier to say that something has been achieved. The Commission neither focused on the big picture, nor on the longstanding challenges compromising the integrity and core values of the justice system: the excessive powers and lack of accountability of the prosecutor’s office, the subjugation of the judiciary by the executive, and the heavy politicisation of the Supreme Judicial Council. Success in the Commission’s terms does not correspond with the facts on the ground. Had it been that successful, Bulgaria would not be the most corrupt country in the EU according to all major indexes.

If you set the bar low, it is easier to say that something has been achieved.

There are strong reasons to believe that behind-the-curtain arrangements were made between the Commission and Borissov. Hristo Ivanov, former justice minister who resigned because Borissov did not support his proposals for an in-depth judicial reform, has spoken publicly on such complicity. In 2016, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker publicly promised Borissov he would lift the mechanism for Bulgaria despite ongoing scandals and the findings of the Commission’s own reports. On several occasions, the Commission’s methodology has proved flawed. For instance, attacks on the rule of law, such as legislation seemingly violating the Bulgarian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, were recognised as progress in reports on Bulgaria. This indicates that the government’s justifications were taken at face value. Meanwhile, the benchmark on judicial independence was closed as early as 2018 even as judges complained about harassments.

Not even the pre-accession Copenhagen criteria on democratic governance and human rights for potential EU members helped?

In the negotiation stage, the EU institutions had more leverage and some progress was made. But once a country is an EU member, there are no consequences for non-compliance.

The European Commission published its report on rule of law across Europe in September. Many people have criticised it as too soft. What was your impression?

I subscribe to the view: the reports appear one-sided and euphemistic. Everything in the Bulgarian country report is factually correct but it represents only 40 per cent of the picture. Key problems have been omitted and the nature of the current protests has been misrepresented. The report acknowledges ongoing protests against corruption, but it does not mention that the protest are specifically against the alleged corruption of Borissov and the prosecutor’s office. You have a stark contrast between Bulgaria’s rule of law report and the resolution by the European Parliament. The resolution was much more critical and detailed on the decay in the rule of law and systemic breaches of fundamental rights in Bulgaria.

Success in the Commission’s terms does not correspond with the facts on the ground.

Are Bulgaria’s issues with the rule of law similar to the situations with Hungary and Poland?

The rule of law decay in Bulgaria is certainly comparable to the rule of law crises in Hungary and Poland. One observes the same zeal to capture the judiciary, weaponise the prosecuting authorities, remove checks and balances, and curtail human rights. Nevertheless, there are key differences. Unlike Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary were stable democracies when they joined the EU. The assaults on the rule of law we now witness in Poland and Hungary were Bulgaria’s reality at the time of accession.

Many assaults on the rule of law we now witness in Poland and Hungary were Bulgaria’s reality at the time of accession.

Over the years, the Commission created the illusion that Bulgaria was making steady progress so that the international community felt no need to scrutinise developments in the country. In practice, the Commission seems to have provided an umbrella for Borissov’s regime. GERB’s quest for an arsenal of repressive tools was portrayed as commitment to fighting corruption by the Commission. The truth is that corruption cannot fight itself.

Unlike the leadership of Fidesz in Hungary, GERB present themselves as pro-European. They have not overtly engaged in anti-EU rhetoric, they have not made bold ideological claims about building an illiberal democracy, and they have not overtly refused to implement judgments issued by European courts. Instead, while pretending to promote EU values, they undermine them discreetly.

The journalist sometimes mentioned alongside Jan Kuciak and Daphne Caruana Galizia, both murdered in Europe in recent years, is Victoria Marinova, a Bulgarian news presenter. Does her case raise alarms regarding the safety of journalists, activists and human rights campaigners in Bulgaria?

Bulgaria is deeply divided about her murder. The prosecutor’s office says that the case is solved, but they probably just covered up the story. Many reputable journalists do not believe that the right murderer has been caught.


Bulgaria has a history of physical assaults against inconvenient journalists – the perpetrators are usually not found.

Journalism is dangerous in Bulgaria. During the protests, the police has not only used violence against the protesters but also against journalists. Photographic evidence and testimonies show journalists being beaten up and threatened with violence. A cameraman was hospitalised. Bulgaria has a history of physical assaults against inconvenient journalists – the perpetrators are usually not found. Moreover, state authorities often abuse their powers to scare those who are critical of the regime. In 2018, a journalist from Bivol, the Bulgarian partner of the Organised Crime and Corruption Research Project, called the police to prevent the destruction of evidence regarding the abuse of EU funds. In the end, the journalist was arrested. Others have received obscure charges or been harassed by the tax authorities.

Is there sufficient independent news in Bulgaria?

Bulgaria ranks 111th on the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index. Most media are directly or indirectly controlled by Borissov or his partners. Borissov and his partners are celebrated, while opponents are accused of misconduct. Inconvenient judges, businessmen or civil society members are tarnished in the media. Independent outlets are few and information is hard to find. We mainly rely on social media these days. Sadly, even those are censored: key civil society members have seen their profiles blocked and posts deleted – most likely because trolls report them at a mass scale.

Is there a progressive alternative in Bulgaria?

The only real opposition in parliament is the Bulgarian Socialist Party. All other parties in parliament – right-wing formations such as the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO)-Bulgarian National Movement, the National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria, Ataka, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, and Volya – are openly or covertly allied with Borissov. However, some potential alternatives outside of parliament are gaining visibility in the protests. The Democratic Bulgaria coalition – composed of Democrats for Strong Bulgaria, Yes, Bulgaria!, and the Bulgarian Greens – is gaining ground because of its stance against corruption and calls for judicial reform. It appeals to centrist voters as well as classic right-wingers. Some of the key organisers of the protests – the so-called “Poisonous Trio” – have combined forces with former ombudsman turned opposition leader Maya Manolova and may provide an option for centrist and left-wing voters. Citizens are insisting on early elections so that new faces can enter parliament, push for reforms, and correct Borissov’s behaviour if he stays in power.

Is there support for progressive alternatives?

Citizens of diverse backgrounds will support these alternatives. Key members of Bulgaria’s intelligentsia are supporting the protests. Young people are also very visible. Due to the coronavirus, many Bulgarian students who study abroad spent their summer in Bulgaria and seeing all these young faces was very refreshing.

The situation is complicated by the fact that Bulgaria is the poorest country in the EU. 22 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line. A huge social group is mainly concerned with surviving and it is hard to talk about values and justice when they don’t have food on the table. These groups are often more reluctant to support more progressive ideas.

How can progressive European forces such as the Greens/EFA help drive change in Bulgaria?

The European Greens have been surprisingly active in the fight for the rule of law and against corruption in Bulgaria. They are the only European party that took an overt stance against Bulgaria’s corruption. Green MEPs traditionally support protests in Bulgaria, Ska Keller attended the anti-corruption protests dedicated to saving the Pirin National Park from construction and damage a few years ago. This year, Daniel Freund joined the anti-corruption protests. All Green MEPs supported the resolution on Bulgaria, and they were very active during the debates on the rule of law at the European Parliament. This is somewhat ironic, given that we do not have a Green MEP ourselves. I hope we will have one soon. The Bulgarian Greens have a good reputation for sticking to their principles and hopefully will manage to grow their constituency.

FOOTNOTES

[1] According to the survey results 72 per cent of Bulgarians worry that the final results of elections are manipulated (contrast with the 56 per cent EU average), 81 per cent of Bulgarians fear that votes are being bought or sold (contrast with the 55 per cent EU average), and 72 per cent of Bulgarians believe people are coerced to vote a certain way (contrast with the 52 per cent EU average).

[2] The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) is a joint commitment between the EU and the participating member states, it was established at the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union in 2007 as a transitional measure to facilitate the countries’ efforts in the areas of judicial reform, organised crime and corruption.

HEY CANADA
'Normal Christmas out of the question,' says Trudeau as Toronto imposes lockdown


Issued on: 21/11/2020 - 
Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gives a news conference at Rideau Cottage, as efforts continue to help slow the spread of coronavirus, in Ottawa, Canada, on November 20, 2020. © Blair Gable, REUTERS

Text by:FRANCE 24

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday that Canada's hospital system could be overwhelmed by a possible quadrupling of new Covid-19 cases by year end as its biggest city Toronto prepared to impose a lockdown.

Trudeau implored Canadians to stay home as much as possible as a second wave of the novel coronavirus rips across the country, forcing several of the 10 provinces to reimpose curbs on movement and businesses. Cases continue to spike in Canada and authorities complain some people are being more careless about taking precautions.

"A normal Christmas is quite frankly right out of the question," Trudeau said. Earlier, Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam said in the worst case scenario, a spike to 60,000 daily cases, would occur if people became more sociable. Even if current restrictions on gatherings are maintained, new daily cases will jump to over 20,000 by December 31 compared with less than 5,000 now.

I’ll be working from home as much as possible in the coming days, too. Because it’s up to all of us to do our part. We know what to do. We know it isn’t always easy. But we know it works. If you don’t have to leave your house, then don’t. #StayHome— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) November 20, 2020

"Cases across the country are spiking massively ... we're really at risk of seeing case loads go up and hospitals get overwhelmed," said a clearly upset Trudeau.

He dismissed the idea of Ottawa invoking emergency powers to reintroduce the kind of widespread national shutdown that provinces imposed earlier in the year, saying, "I'm not looking to bring in a federal hammer to try and do things."

Toronto lockdown

However, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced on Friday that Toronto – Canada's most populous city and the heart of the financial system – as well as the nearby region of Peel would enter into lockdown on Monday.

"The situation is extremely serious and further action is required to avoid the worst case scenario," Ford said at a press briefing.

Effective Monday November 23, Toronto Public Health and Peel Regional Health Unit will move to Grey-Lockdown level.

Please continue to follow public health measures.

Learn more about Grey-Lockdown level: https://t.co/0Yinu7leCU pic.twitter.com/RQTvqAHW1D— Doug Ford (@fordnation) November 20, 2020

The lockdown, whose restrictions include a ban on indoor private gatherings, will last at least 28 days and violators can be fined CAN$750 (€483).

Outside gatherings will be limited to 10 people, as will religious services, funerals and weddings.

Hair salons and other personal care locations as well as gyms and casinos will be closed.

Schools will remain open, but restaurants and non-essential stores will only be open for pickup and delivery.

"We can't risk overwhelming our hospitals," said Ford, with Canada's most populous province having just passed 100,000 coronavirus infections.

Today’s #COVID19 #Epidemiology in Canada Daily Update: https://t.co/2586g1O35R pic.twitter.com/dfLrb7A6Ib— Dr. Theresa Tam (@CPHO_Canada) November 20, 2020

Officials predict that by November 30 the total Canadian death toll could be between 11,870 and 12,120, with the total cases between 366,500 and 378,600. Canada has recorded a total of 315,751 cases and 11,265 deaths so far.

Separately on Friday, a federal official said Canada expects to receive six million doses of Pfizer and Moderna's Covid-19 vaccines by March 31, 2021, though when the shots can be used will depend on regulatory approval.

Iain Stewart, president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, told a parliamentary committee that because the vaccines were new, manufacturers need to scale up to meet the overall demand.

"All countries are interested in the very first vaccines, and the companies are trying to distribute out to multiple countries at the same time, so the amounts start out small and then they build over the course of the coming year," he said.

(FRANCE 24 with REUTERS and AFP)



Protect the living, honour the dead: Ending violence against women in France

Ahead of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on November 25, we bring you a special documentary on the scourge of domestic violence. Every year in France, more than 220,000 women are victims of violence inflicted by a partner or ex-partner. This abuse usually takes place behind closed doors and takes many forms: beatings, rapes, sexual mutilations, kidnappings. Tragically, last year saw more than 150 femicides. FRANCE 24's Mélina Huet followed four women – a policewoman, a lawyer, a gynaecologist and an activist – who are trying to change the status quo.