CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

EU states back plan to expose big companies' tax avoidance
Daniel Boffey in Brussels  Provided by The Guardian

The EU has moved to force multinational companies to publish a breakdown of the tax they pay in each of the bloc’s member states and in tax havens such as Seychelles, piling pressure on the UK government to follow suit.  

Country-by-country reporting is designed to shine a light on how some of the world’s biggest companies – such as Apple, Facebook and Google – avoid paying an estimated $500bn (£358bn) a year in taxes by shifting their profits from higher-tax countries such as the UK, France and Germany to zero-tax or low-tax jurisdictions including Ireland, Luxembourg and Malta

.

© Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images Country-by-country reporting is designed to highlight how companies such as Apple, Facebook and Google avoid paying an estimated $500bn a year in taxes by shifting their profits.

A majority of EU countries backed legislation at a meeting of ministers on Thursday, in what campaigners said was a “landmark” moment, five years after the regulation was first proposed.

Negotiations will now open with the European parliament, which wants to broaden the scope of the regulation. MEPs want multinationals to make public their profits and tax paid in any country, rather than just member states or a blacklist of EU tax havens, as the price for operating in the bloc.

The decision by the member states to move forward with the proposal, first tabled by the European commission after the 2014 LuxLeaks scandal exposed the sweetheart deals being offered by Luxembourg, was celebrated by senior MEPs who have campaigned for reform.

Sven Giegold, the financial and economic policy spokesperson of the Greens group in the European parliament, said he hoped the move would put pressure on the UK to follow suit.

The chancellor, Rishi Sunak, can exercise powers under the Finance Act 2016 to make multinationals’ country-by-country reporting data public in the UK but the government has said it will only do so if there is an international agreement on the issue.

“This is the breakthrough for fair corporate taxation everywhere in Europe,” Giegold said. “Public country-by-country reporting is a minimum transparency requirement for companies with maximum effect for the common good.

“If large companies have to disclose their profits and taxes paid per country, tax trickery is hardly possible any more. This is a strong barrier against tax avoidance.

“This is a real test case for the new EU-UK cooperation agreement, where both sides agreed to work together on tax matters. It would be a very positive sign for future cooperation if the UK will join the EU in this bold step towards greater corporate tax transparency.”

The backing given to the measure by a qualified majority of member states follows years of disappointment for tax activists. At a meeting of ministers on Thursday, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Sweden, Czech Republic, Hungary and Cyprus had again sought to block the proposal by voting against it or abstaining.

A breakthrough was achieved, however, when Slovenia and Austria joined Finland, Greece, Denmark, Estonia, Romania, Poland, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, France, Bulgaria and Belgium in supporting it.

“I am happy to say that we got great support today, by a large majority of member states,” Portugal’s minister of economy and digital transition, Pedro Siza Vieira, said after the meeting. “We still have a few steps to take in the legislative process, but we can take these steps quickly.”

Oxfam hailed the agreement, describing it as “an important first step towards greater corporate tax transparency”.

Concerns remain, however, over a six-year reporting exemption for “commercially sensitive information” in the proposal backed by the member states. The regulation will also apply only to companies with an annual consolidated turnover above €750m (£650m), excluding nine in 10 multinationals, Oxfam said.

US drops key obstacle to global digital tax: Treasury
AFP 


US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told her G20 colleagues Friday that Washington is dropping a push for a controversial provision in a global digital tax, opening the door to a likely agreement.

© Nicholas Kamm US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced a shift in the US position on a global digital tax, clearing the way for a likely deal

The US shift -- part of a broader repositioning by President Joe Biden from the "America First" agenda of former President Donald Trump -- prompted immediate praise from Germany and France, which said a deal was now "within reach" following the US pivot.

Yellen announced at the G20 finance ministers meeting that US officials "will engage robustly" in the talks and "is no longer advocating for 'safe harbor' implementation of Pillar 1," a Treasury official told AFP.

The Trump administration had insisted on a so-called safe harbor clause in the OECD tax that effectively would have allowed big tech companies to comply voluntarily, blocking progress on a deal.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has been working on a multilateral agreement that would include a global minimum corporate tax rate on tech giants.

The aim is to find a common solution to address the policy dilemma of how to tax profits earned in one country by a company headquartered in another that offers more favorable tax treatment.

European officials said the US shift was an important breakthrough.

"This is a giant step forward on our path towards an agreement among the participating states by the summer," German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said in a statement following virtual talks with his G20 counterparts.

French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire said a deal should be reached by summer, calling for negotiations to be "concluded without delay."

France in 2019 approved a tax on tech firms like Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google, which were accused of moving their profits offshore.

Paris suspended collection of the digital services tax through the end of 2020 amid the OECD talks.

But the measure had drawn sharp criticism from the Trump administration, which had planned to enact tariffs on French goods, but called off the levies in early January before leaving Washington.

Yellen had signaled the likely US shift during her January Senate confirmation hearing, saying she supported efforts to ensure corporations pay their "fair share" and to remove incentives for companies to offshore activities.

In November, some 75 major tech players, including Google and Facebook, backed a French initiative committing them to making a "fair tax contribution" in countries where they operate.

Without an accord, companies face the risk of a proliferation of national laws that could have led to double taxation.

hs-jmb

MOBBED UP
Two more Toronto tow trucks torched in ongoing industry turf war

Driving .ca

© Provided by Driving.ca Toronto Police radio

Police are investigating after two tow trucks were set alight late Tuesday in east Toronto.

Just after 11:45 p.m., Toronto Police and fire were called to a burning tow truck in a parking lot on Victoria Park Ave. near Parma Ct. While en route, emergency crews encountered a second tow truck on fire parked behind a strip mall on Sunrise Ave. and Victoria Park, one block north of the first fire.

Police have yet to confirm if the fires are related, or identify suspects. These two fires are the latest in a series of incidents linked to a violent turf war battling for control of Toronto’s lucrative collision tow business.

Tuesday’s fires come nearly a month after gunmen opened fire on tow trucks parked along the 401 at Avenue Rd. and Leslie St. — just days after a tow truck was torched in a driveway in Whitchurch-Stouffville . Earlier in January, another tow truck was set on fire in a driveway in Ajax .

RELATED
Toronto-area tow company owner hit with charges in OPP corruption investigation

Lorraine Complains: As tow truck operators go to war, who can you trust?

Last week, a Toronto cop was charged for a third time as part of an anti-corruption investigation alleging his involvement in a tow truck ‘consortium’ that used inside information and stolen police radios to get a leg up on competitors seeking to be first on the scene of collisions.

Criminality in the GTA towing industry was the subject of the York Regional Police-led Project Platinum, a far-reaching probe into allegations of fraud, arson, shootings and murders connected to a bloody turf war between rival factions.

QATAR DOES TRUMP A FAVOUR
Al Jazeera launches right-wing media platform aimed at American conservatives

WHERE WILL THE LEFT WING OF THE BBC GO NOW?
Shari Kulha 

Al Jazeera is pivoting to the right with a new platform for conservative audiences, a sea change from its original intent of becoming a go-to source for liberal news and ideas. The Qatar-based news network is launching Rightly, for Republicans who “feel left out of mainstream media,” Politico reported , and will be led by a former Fox News journalist

.

© Provided by National Post The Al Jazeera TV news studio in Doha, Qatar, in a 2015 file photo.

In 2013, Qatar-based Al Jazeera launched its left-leaning Al Jazeera America news channel and website. The state-backed network closed the TV channel three years later, but its AJPlus video network and its international channel – Al Jazeera English – are still popular in the U.S., the Guardian says .

In launching on Thursday, Al Jazeera will join a move to the right by many news outlets, though to less of an extreme than many conservative U.S. news sources.

Former Fox news staffer Scott Norvell will be Rightly’s editor-in-chief. Fox News has swung even further right to combat oncoming ultra-conservative TV channels NewsMax and One America News. He was said to have taken Fox’s Heat Street website to the right when it was onstream in 2016 and 2017.

“Scott Norvell played a part in transitioning Heat Street from libertarian, youth-oriented site as originally envisaged to pro-Trump alt-right Breitbart clone,” a former Heat Street staffer told the Guardian, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Norvell did not respond to a request for comment.

Saudi Arabia and UAE suspected of ‘zero-click’ hacks on Al Jazeera journalists’ iPhones

It’s Donald Trump’s party and the Republicans who voted to convict him are about to pay

Where the extreme right gathers now: Welcome to Telegram, Gab and other shadowy online platforms

The first Rightly show will be called Right Now with Stephen Kent , according to Politico. He currently presents Beltway Banthas: Star Wars, Politics & More, a podcast about the intersection of fandom and politics.

Kent also has a book deal with Center Street, a conservative book company that has published works by far-right authors including Donald Trump Jr and Corey Lewandowski.

Neither Al Jazeera nor Kent immediately responded to requests for comment. Kent retweeted news of the platform on Tuesday morning.

The Guardian noted that privately, some Al Jazeera staff wondered how Rightly would square with the network’s previously stated commitments to giving voice to marginalized communities.

Pamela A. Smith has been named as the first Black woman to lead the U.S. Park Police in the agency's 230-year history. 

© NPS Pamela A. Smith Chief of the U.S. Park Police is seen here in an undated file photo provided by National Park Service.

Smith, a 23-year veteran of the Park Police, officially takes over on Sunday.

The appointment comes as the nation has seen a racial reckoning unfold over the past year and massive protests decrying racism and police brutality against people of color.

"I have dedicated my career to the professionalism of law enforcement, and it is my highest honor and privilege to serve as Chief of Police," Smith said in a statement. "Today's officers face many challenges, and I firmly believe challenges present opportunities. I look forward to leading this exemplary team as we carry out our mission with honesty and integrity."

She has already announced that within 90 days she'll start a program where Park Police officers will have to wear body cameras, starting at the agency's field office in San Francisco. Officers across the country will be wearing them by the end of the year, she added.

"This is one of the many steps we must take to continue to build trust and credibility with the public we have been entrusted to serve," Smith said.

However, she didn't commit to releasing camera footage to the public.

"In order to obtain any footage, a request for a recording can be made through the Freedom of Information act and will be processed in accordance with applicable laws and policies, including the Privacy Act," Smith told ABC Washington, D.C., affiliateWJLA.MORE: America's national parks face existential crisis over race

U.S. Park Police officers have been involved in two high-profile incidents in recent years.

In 2017, the agency came under fire for the shooting death of Bijan Ghaisar in Virginia.

"During the time of the incident I served as a commander of the New York field office, and therefore I have not yet had the opportunity to be briefed [on the Ghaisar case], but that will be my first priority," Smith said per WJLA.

In June, the agency once again came under scrutiny after officers, along with D.C. National Guard troops, violently cleared out protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House so Donald Trump could walk to St. John's Church for a photo-op where he held up a Bible.

At the time, Park Police said it and other agencies used smoke canisters and pepper balls to disperse the crowd.MORE: Police use munitions to forcibly push back peaceful protesters for Trump church visit

Smith has served as a patrol officer, field training officer, executive lieutenant to the chief of police, and was the first woman to lead the New York Field Office.

Smith's "commitment to policing as public service and her willingness to listen and collaborate make her the right person to lead the U.S. Park Police at this pivotal moment in our country," Shawn Benge, deputy director exercising the delegated authority of the National Park Service director, said in a statement.

The Park Police -- the country's oldest federal law enforcement agency, established in 1791 and run by the NPS -- includes about 560 employees who protect parks and landmarks in San Francisco, New York and Washington, D.C.

Health Canada approves AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine

OTTAWA — Health Canada decided Friday to authorize the AstraZeneca vaccine and the first half million doses of it will be shipped to Canada next week. 

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The regulatory team reviewing COVID-19 vaccines said the one by AstraZeneca is both safe and effective and can be used immediately on people over the age of 18.

"This is very encouraging news," said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. "It means more people vaccinated, and sooner."

AstraZeneca joins the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines on the list of those authorized in Canada. Clinical trials showed it to be less effective at preventing infection than the first two, but it is still keeping people from getting very sick or dying, said Dr. Supriya Sharma, the chief medical adviser at Health Canada.

Pfizer and Moderna both reported being 95 per cent effective at preventing COVID-19 infections in patients who received the vaccine, compared to those who received a placebo. AstraZeneca was 62 per cent effective.

But Sharma said the "key numbers" to examine when looking at all the vaccines Canada has approved or is reviewing is whether they prevented serious illness and death.

"If you look across all the clinical trials of the tens of thousands of people that were involved, the number of cases of people that died from COVID-19, that got vaccine was zero," she said. "The number of people that were hospitalized because their COVID-19 disease was so severe was zero. The number of people that died because of an adverse event or an effect of the vaccine was zero."

It's not entirely clear yet how provinces and territories will incorporate the AstraZeneca vaccine into their vaccination programs, but because it is can be shipped and stored in refrigerators instead of freezers, it is a more flexible option.

Sharma said AstraZeneca's review process included not only the clinical trial data submitted by the company but also evidence of how the vaccine has been working in the real world. Millions of people in more than 50 countries have now received the vaccine since it was first approved at the end of December.

Canada anticipated getting enough vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna to vaccinate three million people by the end of March, 14.5 million people by the end of June, and all 38 million Canadians by the end of September.

The addition of AstraZeneca should quicken that pace.

Canada is getting 24 million doses by September, and as many as one million by the end of March. That includes 20 million directly from AstraZeneca, and made in the United States, between April and September. Another 1.9 million doses made in South Korea and delivered via the vaccine sharing initiative known as COVAX are to come by the end of June, and the first 500,000 of those could be delivered in the next month.

Procurement Minister Anita Anand also said a deal to get another two million doses from the Serum Institute of India was finalized Thursday. Verity Pharmaceuticals, which is facilitating the Serum Institute's application in Canada, said Friday the first 500,000 will come next week, followed by one million in mid-April, and the rest in early May.

AstraZeneca vaccines are to be given in two doses between four and 12 weeks apart. Sharma said there is some indication that waiting longer provokes a better response, but that data is not yet complete.

There have been some concerns raised about the AstraZeneca vaccine in recent weeks, including how well it works against variants and whether there is enough data to show it works on older individuals.

Several European countries, including Germany and France, limited AstraZeneca to people under the age of 65. Sharma said there were a limited number of people over 65 involved in the clinical trials, but that data, coupled with the real-world experience in the United Kingdom, shows strong evidence seniors are protected.

"When we do the authorization, the question is, for somebody 65 years of age and older, with the benefits of getting the vaccine versus not getting the vaccine, would the benefits outweigh the risk," she said. "And the answer to that was yes based on all the information that we have.

The National Advisory Committee on Immunization will issue guidance for how best to use the vaccine in the next few days, said Sharma. Provinces can then determine how they will incorporate it into their planning.

Canada's vaccine program is shifting into a higher gear after a month-long slowdown in deliveries due to production issues for Pfizer and Moderna. More than 300,000 people were vaccinated in the last week, almost one-fifth of the total doses injected since the first vaccinations began Dec. 14.

As of Friday afternoon about 700,000 people have received one dose and more than 500,000 are now fully vaccinated with two doses.

The AstraZeneca vaccine works differently than the other two already in use in Canada.

Both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna use messenger RNA technology, using RNA encoded with the piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus known as the spike protein. The mRNA trains the body to fight off a COVID-19 infection.

AstraZeneca is a viral vector vaccine, which takes a cold virus, modifies it so it can't reproduce itself, and adds the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. When injected, it too provokes the body to develop infection-fighting antibodies and cells to fight the virus.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration was meeting Friday to decide whether to authorize the vaccine from Johnson and Johnson, and Sharma said Health Canada was expecting some final data on manufacturing from that company Friday.

An approval for it could soon follow.

A fifth vaccine from Novavax expects to report clinical trial data in April, paving the way for Health Canada to make a decision about it this spring.

Those two vaccines would add another 62 million doses to Canada's supply.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 26, 2021.

Mia Rabson and Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press

LGBTQ USA 

Diverse group of cities have highest rates of gay households

ORLANDO, Fla. — Once known for singer Anita Bryant's anti-gay rights campaign and a ban on gay and lesbian adoptions, Florida is now home to two metro areas with among the highest concentrations of gay and lesbian coupled households in the U.S., according to a new report released by the U.S. Census Bureau.© Provided by The Canadian Press

Orlando and Miami had the fourth and sixth highest percentages respectively of same sex coupled households in the U.S., according to the report released this week using data from the bureau's 2019 American Community Survey.


San Francisco, Portland and Seattle topped the list. Austin was No. 5 and Boston came in at No. 7. But they were joined in the top 10 by some unexpected metro areas like Baltimore, Denver and Phoenix. Noticeably absent were three of the nation's largest metros: New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Though they have some of the nation's most visible LGBTQ communities, the vastness of their metro areas dilutes the concentration.

The appearance of these metros on the list shows that tolerance isn’t limited to large coastal cities, gay rights advocates said.

“You often think of LGBTQ people in large cities like San Francisco, but we're everywhere," said Jeremy LaMaster executive director of FreeState Justice, a Baltimore-based LGBTQ advocacy organization for Maryland.

The report focused on same sex couples, both married and unmarried, and not gay and lesbians who are single. About 1.5% of all coupled households nationwide were same sex. The cities on the top 10 list ranged in concentration from San Francisco's 2.8% to Baltimore's 2%.

In the District of Columbia, which was categorized along with states in the report, 7.1% of coupled households were same sex.

In Florida, acceptance of LGBTQ communities has been driven at the local level, with passage of human rights ordinances, fast-growing populations from all over the world and gay-friendly companies from the hospitality and entertainment industries, said Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida, an LGBTQ advocacy group.

While Orlando already had a visible gay community with out elected officials and workforces like Disney World with large numbers of gays and lesbians, the collective grief from the massacre at the gay Pulse nightclub in 2016 helped push that acceptance into more conservative corners of civic life such as local churches.

“Miami is a port city and Orlando is the epicenter of amusement parks and hospitality, so it makes perfect sense," Smith said of the high concentrations of same sex households. “The cities have led the way for sure, rebuilding Florida's image from a really hateful history."

That history stretches back to the 1970s. That's when Bryant, an early-1960s pop singer and brand ambassador for the Florida Citrus Commission, headed a campaign that led to the repeal of an ordinance in Miami-Dade County prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in one of the earliest organized fights against gay rights. Florida also was the last state in the U.S. to end its ban on gay and lesbian adoption when a court ruled it violated equal protection rights in 2010.

Austin, Orlando and Phoenix have been among the metropolitan areas with the largest population growth in recent years.

Phoenix's general meritocracy, which comes from being a relatively young community with a constant influx of new arrivals, has made it welcoming to gay and lesbians, said Angela Hughey, president of ONE Community, a business coalition that advocates for inclusion and equality.

“It's a very broad city and we are in every neighbourhood," Hughey said Thursday.

In Baltimore, residents have had an appreciation for a camp esthetic that now would overlap with queer culture. A favourite son, after all, is filmmaker John Waters, and the city celebrates the unconventional, as evidenced by the annual HONFest where celebrants sport beehive hairdos and cat-eye sunglasses. The city also has a vibrant vogue ball scene.

“Part of me feels like I need to give a shout-out to John Waters," said LaMaster, referring to the filmmaker behind cult movies made in Baltimore, such as “Pink Flamingos" and “Hairspray." “But it's not just John Waters. There is a rich heritage and history that can be found here.”

LaMaster, who lived in New York City before moving to Baltimore, said the Maryland city lacked the visible gay scene found in a neighbourhood like Chelsea in New York City. But Baltimore made sense for same sex couples wanting to set up households in a state that has been a leader in laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as allowing second-parent adoptions, he said.

“The work isn't done. That's my takeaway," La Master said. “Even though there has been tremendous progress, I think there's always room for improvement."

___

Follow Mike Schneider on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeSchneiderAP

Mike Schneider, The Associated Press

Opinion: States need to ensure student journalists have press freedom

 February 26 is Student Press Freedom Day.

Opinion by Rhamil Aloysius Taguba

For many young journalists across the US, there is a roadblock to publishing the truth.

© BRITTA PEDERSEN/DPA/DPA/AFP via Getty Images

It's the 1988 Supreme Court Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision, which allows schools to regulate content for high school and college newspapers they sponsor. The decision says that a school has a right to exercise editorial control if it has "legitimate pedagogical concerns."

Since the decision does not specify what those concerns can entail, it's easy to see how this puts our freedom of speech under attack. During Student Press Freedom Day on Friday, it's important to highlight what's at stake when student journalists are censored in this way and what can be done.

It has taken a toll on student voice and freedom of speech overall. For example, in Westside High School in Omaha, Nebraska, student journalists are self-censoring after the school district began enforcing a "prior review" requirement, which would allow administrators to review articles before they are published. This delay also causes an issue with publishing relevant topics in a timely manner. In a statement to a local news outlet, the superintendent said that "Articles should not flow from students straight to building administrators like many of them have been. Instructors need to own their program's content and can send to administration only if they feel they need help and support."

However, states do have a choice to counteract Hazelwood laws by passing what is known as "New Voices" legislation, named after the grassroots movement started by the Student Press Law Center -- a non-profit organization that supports and defends the rights of student journalists.

So far, 14 states, including Nevada, where I live, have passed New Voices legislation.

But in other states, such as Missouri, students continue to fight to report the truth within the limits imposed by Hazelwood. Mitch Eden, an adviser at Kirkwood High School in St. Louis and an advocate for student press freedom, talked to me about the importance of the campaign.

"There are people opposed to granting students and advisers first amendment freedoms students have in school," Eden said. "I think for some politicians, it's losing control. But for me, it's telling kids you believe in them, you trust them, and in a free open journalistic society, we can educate, we can spur positive discussion, maybe we can get somewhere."

So why are governments so reluctant to extend First Amendment protections to students even when the articles that they want to print have already been reviewed by newspaper advisers at the school?

Some might say that it's a liability concern, which should always be taken seriously, but the restraints placed on student journalists around the country seem to be more about censoring what truths are reported. In the end, it's an example of having the wrong priorities. And after four years of the media being bashed by former President Donald Trump and his supporters, the relationship between politicians and the media -- at any level -- is strained.

Some might also say that what is published in a school newspaper does not hold the same power as what is reported in mainstream media, but there are several examples of student journalists making national headlines because their work helped to break stories.

Whatever the reason, it is up to us, the general public to pressure elected officials to right this wrong. "We need to step up and have our voices heard. We need to contact our politicians and tell them that this matters to us, that this isn't a political issue," Eden said. "It's the First Amendment for a reason, written by our founding fathers. We need to understand it, protect it, and use it, or we're going to lose it."

Unfortunately, the opportunity to save these press rights only stays at the state level for now. Student press freedom should be a federal discussion. However, while focus is primarily on fighting a deadly pandemic and a bitter political division, it's unlikely that student press freedom would even be brought up in Congress at this time.

As student journalists continue to push for the passage of New Voices legislation in states, we also have to gain the trust of adults and administrators by good communication, agreed terminology, and accurate reporting in order to cover more sensitive topics. At times, covering certain topics won't be easy, and we need school officials to understand this. It may require cold, hard evidence or brutal, scathing commentary that may not be appealing to administrators, prompting them to want to censor us. Yet, it's the truth. To censor the truth from the general public is one of the most dangerous threats to American democracy.

I think it's so important to show students that their thoughts and ideas matter. The First Amendment is a right and a guarantee that our founding fathers wanted for everyone, and it shouldn't be taken away from student journalists. Student press rights and freedoms should be protected.

These freedoms allow us to report the truth effectively and inform our peers -- and, as history has shown, the nation.

It empowers the way we think, we feel, we work. As Eden said, "It's the First Amendment for a reason."

The exclusion of women in Myanmar politics helped fuel the military coup

Gabrielle Bardall, Research Fellow, International Policy Studies, 

L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa 

and Elin Bjarnegård, Associate Professor in Political Science, 

Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study

 5 days ago

On Feb. 1, 2021, Myanmar’s military seized power. While a dramatic event, the coup was a continuation of old power structures

.

© (AP Photo) Anti-coup protesters flash the three-fingered salute during a rally in downtown Yangon, Myanmar on Feb. 19, 2021.

Myanmar’s decade-long period of political transition, peace-building and democratic elections fell short of freeing the country from military control. Despite its female leader, the exclusion of women throughout the failed transition to democracy is partly why Myanmar was unable to create deep institutional change.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s image as “mother of the nation” depicted her as a caring matriarch. This image stood in contrast with the harsh patriarchy of military rule. But politics in Myanmar defy stereotypes and simple classifications.

Suu Kyi may have been the face of the era of democratic reforms, but in reality, the transition was initiated and controlled by the military. Suu Kyi’s legacy as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate was permanently stained by her handling of the Rohingya genocide, and her projected femininity and democratic idealism should not be confused for feminism or inclusive democracy

.

© (AP Photo/Peter Dejong) Aung San Suu Kyi addresses judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, in December 2019. She was defending Myanmar against allegations of genocide in its campaign against the Rohingya Muslim minority.

Gender can still help us understand politics in Myanmar, however — just not along these lines. Instead, a different story emerges by looking at the exclusion of women in key stages of the transition process. It is a tale of the persistence of patriarchal power throughout the decade of democratization.
Constitution kept men in charge

The governing patriarchy is on full display in the 2008 constitution that spurred Myanmar’s decade of democracy. According to one provision of the constitution, certain positions are suitable for men only. Women are excluded from key ministerial positions, and a major government agency, the Union Civil Service Board, regularly uses this clause of the constitution to block applications from women for both mid- and junior-level positions. This caps decades of extreme repression of women.

The Myanmar army is infamous for its systematic targeting of ethnic minority women and girls for sexual violence, and the militarization of the country has contributed to widespread discriminatory practices.

Read more: Internet blackouts in Myanmar allow the military to retain control

The peace process (2011-15) between the Tatmadaw — Myanmar’s military — and ethnic armed groups that have long challenged its hold on the country was a deal involving men. Only four women served inconsistently on senior negotiation delegations (less than six per cent). Women were also largely excluded from ceasefire structures and monitoring teams.

Other important institutions also failed to modernize during the transition. Instead, they generally mirrored conservative and traditional attitudes. Women’s representation in parliament gained roughly five per cent in both the 2015 and 2020 elections, growing from less than five per cent in 2014 to just over 15 per cent in November’s contested election. Important as this progress was, equality was ultimately handcuffed by the embedded patriarchy of the military.

The military orchestrated the democratic transition according to rules designed to give them continued influence. In so doing, they hamstrung women’s political inclusion.

© (AP Photo/Aung Shine Oo) Police stand guard behind barbed wire as they attempt to stop protesters outside Union Election Commission office in November 2020, in Naypyitaw, Myanmar after the military said it did not accept the election results.

The Tatmadaw also retained the right to appoint 25 per cent of legislative seats. A military background is required for certain ministerial positions. Since women were only recently allowed to serve in the military, the requirement effectively makes them ineligible to hold these offices.

There were only two women among the 166 military appointees following the 2015 elections. The military appointed only 10 per cent of women to national, state and regional legislative chambers in 2020. The military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) only elected one woman to both the 2015 and 2020 parliaments. The military quota makes reform unlikely because any constitutional amendment to address discrimination requires 75 per cent approval.

The patriarchy of the military is reflected in the non-military political parties, notwithstanding Suu Kyi’s leadership. The parties are gatekeepers to women’s representation. But they have generally not taken steps to improve women’s political participation.
No quick fix

We are not arguing more women in Myanmar politics would have prevented the coup. There is no such thing as a quick fix to eliminate the country’s history of militarization.

But we do suggest that women’s relative absence from positions of influence helped enable the military to maintain its grip on power.

© (AP Photo/Aung Ko San) Ethnic Entha women display placards during a protest against the military coup in Inle Lake, Taunggyi, Myanmar, on Feb. 11, 2021.

Understanding this connection is important for three reasons. First, giving women a seat at the table makes a difference. Research shows that equality and inclusion foster sustainable peace, meaning that the attitudes of the participating men are also required. Rather than just armed organizations, civil society groups and women’s organizations should be included in transitions from war to peace.

Second, the women’s movement in Myanmar offers new models for collaborative governance. Relegated to the shadows, women’s groups nonetheless organized to contribute to the peace process through informal channels, including back-channel negotiation. They have shown a path for bridging ethnic differences to work towards common goals.

Finally, by tracing the path of patriarchy in Myanmar, we can better understand what brought about the coup. As we grapple with why the military staged a coup at this particular moment in time, it should be seen in light of the country’s militarized recent history and the power dynamics of the transition. Women’s rights organizations are currently mobilizing and are putting it out there quite simply: a militarized Myanmar is a threat for women.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Gabrielle Bardall has consulted for The Carter Center Myanmar project in the past.

Elin Bjarnegård receives funding from the Swedish Research Council.

Alberta woman appeals 18-year sentence for killing abusive husband

© Provided by Edmonton Journal Helen Naslund, seen in 2015, was sentenced to 18 years for shooting her husband twice in the head and disposing his body in a dugout.

An Alberta woman sentenced to 18 years behind bars for killing her abusive husband is appealing her punishment.

On Thursday, 56-year-old Helen Doris Naslund filed a notice asking the Alberta Court of Appeal to review her sentence.

Naslund pleaded guilty last October for shooting her husband Miles Naslund while he slept in their Holden, Alta. farmhouse. She later sunk the body in a pond with help from her son Neil, who was sentenced to three years .

A lengthy agreed statement of facts detailed the years of abuse Naslund suffered at the hands of her husband. He threw wrenches at her in the lead up to the killing, threatened her, and hurled the family dinner to the floor, saying it was not fit for a dog.

The appeal argues Justice Sterling Sanderman failed to consider the history of domestic abuse Naslund suffered in agreeing to the sentence. It also argues the sentence “brings the administration of justice into disrepute.”

The appeal took particular issue with Sanderman’s characterization of the case as a “callous, cowardly act on a vulnerable victim in his own home.”

Naslund’s sentence generated considerable controversy. An online petition calling for an appeal garnered more than 10,000 supporters. Alberta Sen. Paula Simons (a former Edmonton Journal columnist), spoke about the case in parliament. Elizabeth Sheehy, a University of Ottawa professor emerita of law, told Postmedia Naslund’s was one of the longest sentences in a “battered woman” case in Canadian history.

Reached by text Thursday, Wesley Naslund, Naslund’s eldest son, said the appeal was a “good move,” adding “the courts system has been very unfair with her.”

The 18-year sentence was part of a joint submission by Crown lawyer Dallas Sopko and defence lawyer Darin Sprake.

Representing Naslund in the appeal is senior Edmonton lawyer Mona Duckett.