Thursday, April 22, 2021

Putin On Coup And Lukashenko’s Assassination Plot: They Crossed All The Lines

BelarusFeed 2021-04-21 

Russian President Vladimir Putin denounced Western silence on the “coup d’etat attempt in Belarus.” He stated this during his annual address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow on Wednesday, 21 April.

Photo: press service of the President of Russia

Putin stressed that Russia intends to defend its own interests within the framework of international law, as other countries do.

“In the world, unfortunately, it seems that everyone is used to the practice of politically motivated, illegal sanctions in the economy. These are rough attempts to impose their own will on others by force. Today, this practice is growing into something much more dangerous. I mean the recently known direct attempt to organize a coup d’etat in Belarus and the assassination of the president of this country,” he said.

At the same time, it is characteristic, Putin continued, that even such flagrant actions do not find condemnation of the so-called collective West.

“Nobody seems to notice this. Everyone pretends that nothing is happening at all. You can think whatever you want about Ukrainian President Yanukovych, who was also almost killed and removed from power in an armed coup, or Maduro in Venezuela … You can have any point of view regarding the policy of Belarusian President Lukashenko. But the practice of organizing a coup d’etat, plans for political assassinations, including those of high-ranking officials, are too much! All lines have been crossed!”

In fact, it was a massive cyberattack, Putin said. “And all those confessions of the detained conspirators, that they planned to block Minsk, including the city infrastructure, a complete shutdown of the capital’s energy system. […] What would have happened if the coup d’etat attempt had been actually undertaken? How many people would have suffered? What would have happened to Belarus if such a coup took place, no one cares, as no one thought about Ukraine when the coup was carried out in this country.”

At the same time, Vladimir Putin emphasized the peacefulness of the Russian authorities, despite the unfriendly actions against it.

“In some countries, a nasty custom has been introduced: for any reason, and most often for no reason at all, to criticize Russia. In the sports sphere. In this regard, we behave in an extremely restrained manner, I will say directly without irony, modestly, we often do not respond at all not only to unfriendly actions but also to outright rudeness,” he said.

The Russian President assured that he did not want to burn the bridges and wants to have friendly relations with the world community

“But if some interpret our good intentions as indifference or weakness and intend to burn or blow up bridges himself, they should know: Russia’s response will be asymmetrical, rapid and harsh. The organizers of any provocations that threaten the fundamental interests of our security will regret their deeds like never before!”


Read also:

Russian Prime Minister Comes To Minsk, Lukashenko Announces Meeting With Putin

Peskov: Putin And Biden Discussed Information About Assassination Attempt On Lukashenko

Coup plot

On Saturday, 17 April, Alexander Lukashenko said that political analyst Alexander Feduta and lawyer Yury Zenkovich were involved in plotting the assassination attempt on him and his sons. “Then we found out about the involvement of foreign intelligence services. Most likely, the CIA, the FBI, I do not know which of the Americans exactly. We learned about their plans to come to Minsk and to organize an assassination against the president and his children,” said Lukashenko.

Later that day, the state-run ONT TV channel aired a report with a commentary by the KGB Chairperson Ivan Tertel that the special services “managed to prevent attempts of an armed coup in Belarus and elimination of government officials”. The official said that Alexander Feduta, Yuri Zenkovich and Grigory Kostusev were members of the criminal group. The ONT reported that “the conspirators plotted the coup for the summer of this year, June or July”.

The Federal Security Service (FSS) of Russia confirmed the information of the KGB of Belarus and stated that it had participated in the operation to detain Feduta and Zenkovich in Moscow. According to the agency, they arrived in the city after consultations in the U.S. and Poland to meet with “opposition-minded generals of the Belarusian Armed Forces.” At the same time, according to the FSS, seizing power by force in Belarus was planned for 9 May.

“Any suggestion that the U.S. government was behind this or was involved in the attempted assassination of Lukashenko is completely false,” said the U.S. State Department representative.

Source: TUT.BY


Psaki denies allegation US backed plot to assassinate Belarus strongman Lukashenko
European dictator is a close ally of Russia's Putin

By Tyler Olson | Fox News

White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Wednesday denied that the United States was involved in an alleged plot to assassinate contested Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.

"I can confirm there's no basis in fact there," Psaki said when asked about the allegation.

The Russian military intelligence agency FSB said late last week that it arrested two men, including one with a dual citizenship in the United States and Belarus, who planned a military coup in Belarus and to assassinate Lukashenko.


White House press secretary Jen Psaki speaks during a press briefing at the White House in Washington, Monday, April 19, 2021. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

RUSSIA'S PUTIN, BELARUS' LUKASHENKO SPARK BACKLASH FOR SKIING, RIDING SNOWMOBILES DURING MASS PROTESTS

Lukashenko later alleged that the U.S. was behind the alleged plot. He said he was "surprised" that "the Americans behave this way" and that "no one can set the task of eliminating the president, except the top political leadership," according to his office's website.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday lamented the fact Western officials had not addressed the alleged plot against Lukashenko.

"It is typical that even such flagrant actions have not been condemned by the so-called collective West. Nobody seemed to notice. Everyone pretends nothing is happening," Putin said. "[T]he practice of staging coups d’état and planning political assassinations, including those of high-ranking officials — well, this goes too far. This is beyond any limits."

Psaki also responded to more general broadsides that Putin launched against Western countries in her press briefing Wednesday.
 

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, left, greets International Ice Hockey Federation President Rene Fasel during their meeting in Minsk, Belarus, Monday, Jan. 11, 2021. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki denied Lukashenko's allegation that the U.S. was behind a plot to assassinate him. (Nikolai Petrov/BelTA Pool Photo via AP)


BELARUS OLYMPIC BODY ELECTS LUKASHENKO'S SON AS LEADER

"I don't think we take anything President Putin says personally. We have tough skin," she said.


The United States officially categorizes Belarus, an ally of Russia, as an authoritarian country. The U.S. does not recognize the result of the 2020 presidential election. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken called it "fraudulent."

"As a result of government suppression surrounding the fraudulent August 2020 Presidential elections in Belarus and its aftermath, there are more than 340 political prisoners detained in Belarus today," Blinken said in a statement Monday. "The United States calls on the Belarusian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all those unjustly detained or imprisoned."



On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to Belarus Julie Fisher met with Belarus opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya in Lithuania. Tsikhanouskaya is in self-imposed exile in the neighboring country, according to Reuters.

"It is important that the international community speak up and speak out about what’s happening, that we pay close attention, and that we call for the immediate release of all political prisoners in Belarus," Fisher said, according to Reuters


Bizarre Belarus “coup plot” has all the hallmarks of a classic Kremlin drama

UkraineAlert by Brian Whitmore



Belarus President Alyaksandr Lukashenka and Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin meet in Minsk on April 16. (Alexander Astafyev/POOL/TASS via REUTERS)

One way to look at Belarus ruler Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s claim last week that he was the target of a US-backed coup and assassination attempt is that this is just the latest in a series of conspiratorial rants by an increasingly beleaguered dictator.

But as is often the case in the former Soviet Union, upon closer examination, there appears to be at least some method behind all the madness.

Lukashenka’s claim that the plot was approved “by the top political leadership” in the United States came just days after Russia’s Federal Security Service had arrested two Belarusians, including one with US citizenship, and accused them of plotting to carry out a coup during the May 9 Victory Day parade in Minsk.

Yuras Zyankovich, a Belarusian-born lawyer who also holds US citizenship, and Alyaksandr Fyaduta, who served as Lukashenka’s spokesman in the 1990s, were extradited to Belarus.

The Belarusian KGB said the alleged plot was connected to an online discussion on Zoom last summer among experts, opposition figures, and former law enforcement officials who were discussing the country’s political situation and possible future scenarios.

The immediate context surrounding the arrests and coup plot allegations suggests that these developments are part of a broader operation designed to advance Russia’s strategic goals both in Belarus and vis-a-vis the West.

News of the “coup plot” came as Lukashenka prepares to visit Moscow for talks with Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin on April 22. On the eve of Lukashenka’s visit, Putin raised the alleged plot in his bellicose state-of-the-nation speech on April 21, claiming that what he called “unjust sanctions” against Belarus are escalating into “something more dangerous: a coup attempt in Belarus.”

As speculation mounted over the coming meeting in Moscow, Lukashenka released an oblique statement on the state-run Telegram channel Pul Pervovo on April 17 announcing that he has made “the most principled decision of my quarter-of-a-century presidency,” adding that “it will be serious” and he will “formalize” the decision soon. This has led to speculation that some form of deeper integration between Russia and Belarus could b
e imminent.



The broader context surrounding the recent arrests and coup allegations is also important. The “exposure” of the alleged plot comes at a time when Russia is visibly expanding its political, economic, and military footprint in Belarus with the clear aim of achieving Moscow’s long-standing objective of turning its smaller but strategically vital 

One way to look at Belarus ruler Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s claim last week that he was the target of a US-backed coup and assassination attempt is that this is just the latest in a series of conspiratorial rants by an increasingly beleaguered dictator.

But as is often the case in the former Soviet Union, upon closer examination, there appears to be at least some method behind all the madness.

Lukashenka’s claim that the plot was approved “by the top political leadership” in the United States came just days after Russia’s Federal Security Service had arrested two Belarusians, including one with US citizenship, and accused them of plotting to carry out a coup during the May 9 Victory Day parade in Minsk.

Yuras Zyankovich, a Belarusian-born lawyer who also holds US citizenship, and Alyaksandr Fyaduta, who served as Lukashenka’s spokesman in the 1990s, were extradited to Belarus.

The Belarusian KGB said the alleged plot was connected to an online discussion on Zoom last summer among experts, opposition figures, and former law enforcement officials who were discussing the country’s political situation and possible future scenarios

The immediate context surrounding the arrests and coup plot allegations suggests that these developments are part of a broader operation designed to advance Russia’s strategic goals both in Belarus and vis-a-vis the West.

News of the “coup plot” came as Lukashenka prepares to visit Moscow for talks with Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin on April 22. On the eve of Lukashenka’s visit, Putin raised the alleged plot in his bellicose state-of-the-nation speech on April 21, claiming that what he called “unjust sanctions” against Belarus are escalating into “something more dangerous: a coup attempt in Belarus.”

As speculation mounted over the coming meeting in Moscow, Lukashenka released an oblique statement on the state-run Telegram channel Pul Pervovo on April 17 announcing that he has made “the most principled decision of my quarter-of-a-century presidency,” adding that “it will be serious” and he will “formalize” the decision soon. This has led to speculation that some form of deeper integration between Russia and Belarus could be imminent.

The broader context surrounding the recent arrests and coup allegations is also important. The “exposure” of the alleged plot comes at a time when Russia is visibly expanding its political, economic, and military footprint in Belarus with the clear aim of achieving Moscow’s long-standing objective of turning its smaller but strategically vital Western neighbor into a pliant and obedient vassal. It also comes when Belarusian society is increasingly distancing itself from Russia and embracing the West amid an unprecedented wave of pro-democracy protests.

At the most basic level, claims of a US-backed coup advance Moscow’s goal of increasing Belarusian isolation from the West and increasing its dependence on Russia. It also appears to be an attempt to foreclose any attempt by Lukashenka to return to his pre-August 2020 game of tacking between Moscow and the West in order to achieve the maximum degree of geopolitical flexibility.

The main objective here may have been to send a clear and unambiguous message to the Belarusian strongman: you are in Russia’s sphere of influence now and you have no place else to turn. Judging from his subsequent comments, Lukashenka appears to have received the message loud and clear.

In his public statements, Lukashenka has not only accepted Russia’s narrative about the arrests and the plot, but has also built on them enthusiastically. According to his evidence-free account, not only was there a US-backed plot to overthrow the Belarusian government, but also a conspiracy to assassinate him and his children.

Lukashenka has claimed that Putin raised the issue of the alleged US-backed plot in a recent phone call with US President Joe Biden. “I am grateful to Putin. When he was talking with Biden, he asked him this question,” Lukashenka reportedly commented. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov later confirmed Lukashenka’s account.

In addition to advancing Moscow’s geopolitical goals in Belarus, this “coup plot” also feeds into Moscow’s perennial goal of establishing a “whataboutism” narrative with the West at a time when Russia is under increasing scrutiny for massing troops on the Ukrainian border. It also follows news of new US sanctions over the SolarWinds hack against US federal agencies and interference in the 2020 US election. And it comes in the midst of an escalating diplomatic crisis with the Czech Republic, which expelled Russian diplomats last week over claims that Russian military agents were behind a deadly 2014 explosion at a Czech arms depot.

Despite US denials and a lack of any real evidence to support it, the alleged coup plot gives Moscow the ability to advance a narrative that it is not guilty of anything more nefarious than the West’s own actions. Indeed, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed that the recent Czech decision to expel Russian diplomats was an effort by the West to distract attention from the alleged coup plot.

The Belarusian “coup plot” comes right out of the Kremlin playbook of using dramaturgy, subterfuge, and disinformation to muddy the waters, establish false equivalency narratives, and create facts on the ground to advance Moscow’s imperial and revanchist geopolitical goals. It is important for Western policymakers to remain clear-eyed amidst all this Kremlin-generated fog.

The essence of the conflict between Russia and the West is a normative struggle between a Western system based on the rule of law and accountability against an alternative advanced by the Putin regime that is based on kleptocracy and autocracy. It is a battle being played out in Russia’s neighboring countries, including Belarus, and inside Russia itself.

The West is on the right side of history in this struggle and must not allow itself to be distracted from this essential truth by the Kremlin’s dramaturgy and subterfuge.

In his public statements, Lukashenka has not only accepted Russia’s narrative about the arrests and the plot, but has also built on them enthusiastically. According to his evidence-free account, not only was there a US-backed plot to overthrow the Belarusian government, but also a conspiracy to assassinate him and his children.

Lukashenka has claimed that Putin raised the issue of the alleged US-backed plot in a recent phone call with US President Joe Biden. “I am grateful to Putin. When he was talking with Biden, he asked him this question,” Lukashenka reportedly commented. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov later confirmed Lukashenka’s accoun



In addition to advancing Moscow’s geopolitical goals in Belarus, this “coup plot” also feeds into Moscow’s perennial goal of establishing a “whataboutism” narrative with the West at a time when Russia is under increasing scrutiny for massing troops on the Ukrainian border. It also follows news of new US sanctions over the SolarWinds hack against US federal agencies and interference in the 2020 US election. And it comes in the midst of an escalating diplomatic crisis with the Czech Republic, which expelled Russian diplomats last week over claims that Russian military agents were behind a deadly 2014 explosion at a Czech arms depot.

Despite US denials and a lack of any real evidence to support it, the alleged coup plot gives Moscow the ability to advance a narrative that it is not guilty of anything more nefarious than the West’s own actions. Indeed, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed that the recent Czech decision to expel Russian diplomats was an effort by the West to distract attention from the alleged coup plot.

The Belarusian “coup plot” comes right out of the Kremlin playbook of using dramaturgy, subterfuge, and disinformation to muddy the waters, establish false equivalency narratives, and create facts on the ground to advance Moscow’s imperial and revanchist geopolitical goals. It is important for Western policymakers to remain clear-eyed amidst all this Kremlin-generated fog.

The essence of the conflict between Russia and the West is a normative struggle between a Western system based on the rule of law and accountability against an alternative advanced by the Putin regime that is based on kleptocracy and autocracy. It is a battle being played out in Russia’s neighboring countries, including Belarus, and inside Russia itself.

The West is on the right side of history in this struggle and must not allow itself to be distracted from this essential truth by the Kremlin’s dramaturgy and subterfuge.

Brian Whitmore is a Nonresident Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, an Adjunct Assistant Professor at The University of Texas at Arlington, and host of The Power Vertical Podcast.
SURPRISE THE RIGHT IS REACTIONARY
Right-wing media erupts in incoherent rage after Derek Chauvin is found guilty



Tucker Carlson mocks Chauvin verdict as "please don't hurt us"; Tomi Lahren asks, "Is Foot Locker safe tonight?"

By ZACHARY PETRIZZO
APRIL 21, 2021 


Tomi Lahren (Getty/Joshua Blanchard)


With nationwide emotions running high following the conviction of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for the murder George Floyd, right-wing media reacted in opposite fashion to the general public, attempting to infuriate followers and lash out at the verdict.

Many on the right, both in media and politics, invoked conservatives' word of the year, suggesting that the trial was "rigged" or impacted by "mob rule." Other, more "mainstream," conservative figures complained about the remarks made by President Biden and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who praised the verdict and called for a broader push for racial justice.

Some of the most shocking remarks came late on Tuesday night during Fox News host Laura Ingraham's program, where right-wing YouTuber Brandon Tatum made an incoherent case for a sinister conspiracy, suggesting that the media aims to have Black people confront police in order to be shot in exchange for a large payoff.

"And these political pundits and these political talking heads, they want you to fight the police, they want you to be killed so they can make all this money, they can promote it on the news, they can get a payout with the family, and you're going to be dead as a doornail," Tatum stated, who is currently himself at war with fellow Black conservatives.


How can Democrats unite with Republicans who enabled Trump?
00:56 / 03:11


Fox News host Tucker Carlson, hours after the verdict, opined that the jury's implicit statement amounted to "please don't hurt us."

"Everyone understood perfectly well the consequences of an acquittal in this case," Carlson said. "After nearly a year of burning and looting and murder by BLM, that was never in doubt."

Carlson then proceeded to ask rhetorical questions, addressing Chauvin's potential sentence of 40 years in prison. (Chauvin's actual sentence will not be decided for about eight weeks.) "Is that a fair punishment?" the Fox News host demanded. "Is the officer guilty of the specific crimes for which he was just convicted?"

Later during his Tuesday evening program, Carlson cut off a guest who pointed out that Chauvin, according to several law enforcement witnesses at his trial, had clearly used excessive force in restraining Floyd. "I just think that it was excessive, and it shouldn't have happened," said former New York City corrections officer Ed Gavin, who was about to move on to another point before being interrupted by Carlson.

Evidently impatient with this argument, Carlson remarked, "Yeah, but the guy that did it looks like he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison, so I'm kind of more worried about the rest of the country. Thanks to police inaction, in case you haven't noticed, [it's] like boarded up. That's more my concern." Gavin attempted to continue, but Carlson said: "Nope! Done. Thank you."

Other right-wing pundits online also attempted to sow discord. "Is the Foot Locker safe tonight? Should be, right? Justice, right? No need to steal in the name of George Floyd anymore, right?" Fox Nation personality Tomi Lahren remarked. Responding to a comment from CNN's Don Lemon that "justice has been served" in the case, conservative pundit Ben Shapiro responded that "we all know he would never have said this had the reverse verdict been reached."

Newsmax host Rob Schmitt claimed that the jury decided to "sacrifice" Chauvin to "the mob." One America News (OAN) correspondent and neo-Nazi sympathizer Jack Posobiec, after the verdict was released, said that "jurors may have feared for their lives," baselessly speculating there might have been "jury tampering."

Ex-President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, during Steve Bannon's "WarRoom" podcast on Tuesday afternoon, suggested that the case "was subverted by the media."



Even further to the right, personalities such as young white nationalist "groyper" guru Nicholas Fuentes were angered by the verdict. He tweeted, "Rigged System." Far-right Gateway Pundit blogger Cassandra Fairbanks wrote on Twitter, "Poor Chauvin. This is awful. He is a political prisoner. Nobody can change my mind on this," but later deleted the tweet.

As Salon's Jon Skolnik noted Tuesday upon the verdict being read to the nation, "Floyd's death, caught on tape as he repeated the words 'I can't breathe' 27 times in the first four minutes and 45 seconds of the incident, caused protests to erupt across the world last summer. Chauvin had faced three charges: second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. Chauvin is now heading to jail for the first time since his initial arrest."

Some right-wingers appear to pin their hopes of overturning the verdict on the supposed effect of remarks by Democratic politicians calling for justice. Legal experts suggest that is unlikely to be a successful argument for reversal. "If you're relying on that for your appeal, that is not a hopeful situation," defense attorney Ken White told Law & Crime.

Zachary Petrizzo is a staff writer at Salon. He previously covered politics at Mediaite and The Daily Dot. Follow him on Twitter @ZTPetrizzo.
REPUBLICANS PANIC OVER CHAUVIN CONVICTION

4/21/21  by John Aravosis 

I’ve been watching the fallout from the Derek Chauvin verdict. As you know, Chauvin is the police officer convicted on three counts of killing George Floyd after pushing his knee against Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds, ultimately killing him. It’s been remarkable, but perhaps not surprising, to see how upset many of the loudest Republicans are at Chauvin’s conviction.

First up, leave it to Fox News to watch the Derek Chauvin verdict and feel outraged that the man was convicted of what was obviously an unnecessary and negligent death. No, Tucker — and no, Candace — jury trials are not “mob justice.” They’re simply justice.

Tucker was so upset by Chauvin’s conviction that he had a meltdown when a guest had the temerity to disagree with him:


Not to be left out, right-wing agitator Ben Shapiro jumped on the bandwagon, claiming that Chauvin was convicted because the media and politicians launched an “enormous pressure campaign.” Now, my friend Lindsay Beyerstein argues that it in fact was public pressure that led to the indictment and prosecution of Derek Chauvin, and that may be the case. But Chauvin was ultimately convicted because he was clearly guilty, and the evidence proved it. Regardless, why is the far-right so upset about this particular case? The killing of George Floyd was so outrageous and unnecessary — why take a stand on this case?


Meanwhile, QAnon loon Marjorie Taylor Greene, who’s actually a sitting member of Congress from Georgia, weighed in, and managed to craft quite a conspiracy theory out of the fact that there was no violence last night following the verdict. According to Greene, the fact that DC was “quiet” last night, and literally nothing happened, proves how violent Black people are, and how legitimately scared white people are of Black people.


I still want to know what happened to Alan Dershowitz.

archive J

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Sen.ate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. John's article 

After Derek Chauvin’s Conviction, Gratitude for Darnella Frazier


BY MICHELLE RUIZ22 APRIL 2021
BRITISH VOGUE


PHOTO CREDIT: DARNELLA FRAZIER/INSTAGRAM

Tuesday’s verdict made official in the eyes of law what people saw last May: Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is guilty of killing George Floyd. It was a rare conviction in the death of a Black man at the hands of a police officer, and one that may have never happened if not for Darnella Frazier, the then 17-year-old girl who filmed the homicide on her phone and gave a powerful testimony in the case against Chauvin.

After the jury’s decision and the complex mix of emotions it brought, thoughts quickly turned to Frazier, a child who witnessed Floyd’s death firsthand. Valerie Jarrett, a former senior adviser to President Obama, tweeted that Frazier played an essential role in the historic verdict, praising her “strength and composure” in capturing the murder of Floyd on camera. That a Black teen knew to take out her phone and begin filming – because she may need evidence later – is an indictment on the state of our justice system itself. “Remember: none of Chauvin’s colleagues turned him in. He murdered a man in broad daylight and we are here today because a brave Black girl named Darnella Frazier kept taping despite threats from the cops on the scene,” author Mikel Jollett tweeted.

Frazier, now 18, was on a walk to Cup Foods convenience store to get snacks with her nine-year-old cousin when she saw the arrest outside. She was among the bystanders shouting at Chauvin to stop, telling him that Floyd couldn’t breathe, when Chauvin reached for a can of mace: “I felt in danger when he did that,” Frazier testified. But she continued filming an atrocity that would go on to spark protests around the world. “I see a man on the ground, and I see a cop kneeling down on him,” she told the jury, describing Floyd as “terrified, scared, begging for his life”. Not only was her video indispensable, but Frazier’s testimony “shaped the trial”, according to The New York Times. The Washington Post went on to hail her a hero, praising Frazier’s “presence of mind” while also grieving that “the intrepid Minneapolis teenager must live with a ghastly memory that will float alongside her for the rest of her life”.

Frazier has spoken about the devastating impact of Floyd’s death, testifying that she has suffered from anxiety. “It’s been nights I stayed up apologising and apologising to George Floyd for not doing more and not physically interacting and not saving his life,” she said. "But it’s like, it’s not what I should have done, it’s what [Chauvin] should have done.” A GoFundMe organised for Frazier has raised more than $639,000 toward her “peace and healing”. The fundraiser aims to help her cope with what she’s experienced: “In addition to the trauma of watching a Black man be murdered by police, she has had to deal with trolls, bullies, and ignorant people harassing her online... we cannot let this young Black woman become a casualty.”

Frazier reacted to Tuesday’s triple-guilty verdict on Facebook and Instagram. “I just cried so hard,” she said. “Thank you God. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.” Meanwhile, many people expressed their thanks to Frazier. As New York Times editor Jazmine Hughes put it: “We got here because of Darnella Frazier... I am forever grateful to her.”
PRIVATIZATION BY ANY OTHER NAME
Dorset NHS sites set to be sold in services shake-up


BBC 4/21/2021

IMAGE COPYRIGHTDORSET COUNTY HOSPITAL NHS TRUST
Emergency and intensive care services are being expanded at Dorset County Hospital

NHS sites could be sold for housing as part of a county-wide plan to reshape health infrastructure in Dorset.

Health chiefs are drawing up proposals that will bring services together at community hubs.

They include "reconfiguring" services in Weymouth, Dorchester and Sherborne.

Dorset Council's people and health scrutiny committee was told the ideas were in the early stages and would depend on winning government funding.

'Up to £500m'

Councillors at Tuesday's meeting were told the strategy for the Dorset Council area involved land in Weymouth and Sherborne being released for housing.

New or improved facilities are also planned at Forston, near Dorchester, and at Wimborne and Shaftesbury, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.

University Hospitals Dorset transformation director Stephen Killen said the changes were the latest phase in a 15-year plan.

He added: "This is an opportunity that will bring a minimum of £350m, and possibly up to £500m, of additional capital across our Dorset system, across 12 community sites."

Work is already under way to build a multi-storey car park at Dorset County Hospital in Dorchester to free up land to expand emergency and intensive care services.

Dorset has already undergone a major review of clinical services which has involved Poole Hospital becoming a centre for planned care and Bournemouth becoming an emergency care hospital.
USA
Federal inspectors say more vaccines at troubled plant may be contaminated

Last month, up to 15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine had to be discarded at Emergent’s factory in Baltimore. A new report says problems were not fully investigated and other doses may be compromised.

 
Emergent BioSolutions headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md. 
–Samuel Corum/The New York Times

By Sharon LaFraniere, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Chris Hamby,
New York Times Service
April 21, 2021


WASHINGTON — Federal regulators have found serious flaws at the Baltimore plant that had to throw out up to 15 million possibly contaminated doses of Johnson & Johnson’s coronavirus vaccine — casting doubt on further production in the United States of a vaccine that the government once viewed as essential in fighting the pandemic.

The regulators for the Food and Drug Administration said that the company manufacturing the vaccine, Emergent BioSolutions, may have contaminated additional doses at the plant. They said the company failed to fully investigate the contamination, while also finding fault with the plant’s disinfection practices, size and design, handling of raw materials and training of workers.

“There is no assurance that other batches have not been contaminated,” the FDA’s 12-page report states.

The report amounted to a harsh rebuke of Emergent, which had long played down setbacks at the factory and added to problems for Johnson & Johnson, whose vaccine had been seen as a game changer because it requires only one shot, can be produced in mass volume and is easily stored.

Production is on pause in the United States, and all vaccines manufactured at the plant have been quarantined. Johnson & Johnson has fallen well behind on its promises to deliver tens of millions of doses to the federal government, in part because concerns about an extremely rare but dangerous blood-clotting disorder led federal officials last week to temporarily halt distribution.

The FDA findings, based on an inspection that ended Tuesday, underscore questions raised in reports by The New York Times about why Emergent did not fix problems earlier and why federal officials who oversee its lucrative contracts did not demand better performance.

A series of confidential audits last year, obtained by The Times, warned about risks of viral and bacterial contamination and a lack of proper sanitation at the Baltimore plant. Separately, The Times reported, a top federal manufacturing expert cautioned in June 
that Emergent would have to be “monitored closely.”

Some health officials were taken aback by the FDA’s conclusions.

“I’m shocked — I can’t put it any other way,” said Dr. José Romero, chairman of a panel advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that later this week will recommend how to handle the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. “Inappropriate disinfection, the prevention of contamination — those are significant and serious violations.”

In statements Wednesday, the FDA, Emergent and Johnson & Johnson all said they were working to resolve the problems at the factory. There was no indication of how long that would take.

Emergent said that “while we are never satisfied to see shortcomings in our manufacturing facilities or process, they are correctable and we will take swift action to remedy them.”

The FDA has not yet certified the plant, located in Baltimore’s Bayview neighborhood, and no doses made there have gone to the public. All the Johnson & Johnson shots that have been administered in the United States have come from overseas.

In a statement, Dr. Janet Woodcock, the FDA’s acting commissioner, and Dr. Peter Marks, its top vaccine regulator, said: “We will not allow the release of any product until we feel confident that it meets our expectations for quality.”

Emergent is a longtime government contractor that has spent much of the last two decades cornering a market in federal biodefense spending.

Although the government gave Emergent a $163 million contract in 2012 to ready the Baltimore plant for mass production in a pandemic, the site remained largely untested, and the company did not meet a requirement for demonstrating its rapid-response capabilities, according to former health officials and contracting documents.

Nonetheless, the government went on to award Emergent a $628 million contract in June, most of it to reserve manufacturing space at the plant, and arranged for the company to produce the Johnson & Johnson shot and a separate vaccine developed by AstraZeneca.

Now, Emergent’s dealings with the government are under increasing scrutiny. On Tuesday, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform announced an investigation into the company’s COVID-19 vaccine contract, as well as its long-standing hold on an outsize portion of the budget for the nation’s emergency medical reserve, the Strategic National Stockpile.

A Times investigation found that purchases of the company’s anthrax vaccine had accounted for almost half the reserve’s entire annual budget for much of the last decade — leaving less money for critical supplies like masks that were scarce last year.

The Bayview plant was supposed to produce the bulk of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which received federal authorization for emergency use this year but only for doses made in the Netherlands. AstraZeneca’s vaccine is not yet allowed in the United States, regardless of where it is manufactured.

The FDA inspection began after routine checks showed that Emergent workers had contaminated at least part of a batch of 13 million to 15 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine with the harmless virus that is used to make the AstraZeneca shot. The regulators found that Emergent failed to thoroughly investigate that incident and performed only routine cleaning afterward. One previous audit of Bayview for a pharmaceutical customer found that Emergent glossed over deviations from manufacturing standards without conducting thorough reviews.

The inspectors, who examined security footage as part of their review, found that Emergent failed to consider whether one or more workers might have been the source of the contamination. Workers are supposed to change gowns and bootees and shower before crossing between the different manufacturing zones for Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca.

But the regulators said that rule appeared to be routinely violated. In one 10-day period in February, for instance, 13 employees moved from one zone to another on the same day, but only one documented having showered, they said. The inspectors also said Emergent failed to consider whether using common storage containers for raw materials might have caused the contamination. Emergent’s own internal audit in July said the flow of workers and materials through the plant was not adequately controlled “to prevent mix-ups or contamination.”

Federal officials have already insisted on a major change they say should significantly limit risks. This month, they ordered Emergent to stop making the AstraZeneca shot at the plant, and they are now trying to help AstraZeneca find a new manufacturing site.

In another finding, the FDA regulators wrote that the Bayview building “is not maintained in a clean and sanitary condition.” Nor is it “of suitable size, design and location to facilitate cleaning, maintenance and proper operations,” they said.

They cited peeling paint, damaged walls, improperly trained employees, overcrowded equipment and poor waste management, an issue they said could lead to contamination of the warehouse where raw materials are stored.

The findings were released two days before the expert advisory panel of the CDC was scheduled to vote on whether to extend, lift or modify the Johnson & Johnson suspension. Officials recommended the pause in order to investigate eight cases of a rare clotting disorder in vaccine recipients, one of them fatal.

Johnson & Johnson resumed its rollout in Europe this week after regulators investigated similar concerns. They recommended that a warning about the blood clots should be attached to the vaccine’s label but said the benefits outweighed the risks.

The inspection report comes as a group of shareholders are suing Emergent, alleging that executives misled investors about the company’s ability to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines in Baltimore.

After announcements last year of deals with the federal government, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca totaling $1.5 billion, Emergent’s share price climbed. Throughout 2020, its founder and chairman, Fuad El-Hibri, cashed in shares and options worth over $42 million, and the company’s chief executive, Robert Kramer, was recently awarded a $1.2 million cash bonus.

The lawsuit alleges that the stock price was artificially inflated because executives failed to disclose significant quality-control problems at the facility. Emergent’s stock has tumbled in recent weeks.

Shortly after the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed decided to award Emergent the $628 million contract, Carlo de Notaristefani, a manufacturing expert who has overseen vaccine production for the federal government since May, warned the company “will have to strengthen” its quality controls, requiring “significant resources and commitment. ”

Dr. Robert Kadlec, the former Trump administration official who oversaw the awarding of the contract, said in an interview Tuesday that officials “recognized that there were going to be inherent risks” but said the government intended to “try to mitigate those risks throughout.”

Romero, the CDC advisory panel leader who is also the Arkansas health secretary, was concerned that the plant’s problems could discourage people from getting vaccinated, even though doses from there have not reached the public. Andy Slavitt, a top health adviser to President Joe Biden, told reporters that the audit showed “a process that is working as it should.”

Johnson & Johnson said that it had already increased oversight of Emergent and that it would “ensure that all of FDA’s observations are addressed promptly and comprehensively.”

The pharmaceutical company is expected to nearly double its supervisors at the Bayview plant, to perhaps a dozen, although Emergent will continue providing a workforce of about 600 employees.


INDIA
Bharat Biotech’s Covid-19 vaccine shows 100% efficacy in study

22 Apr 2021 

Bharat Biotech has reported that interim analysis results from the Phase III trial of its Covid-19 vaccine COVAXIN showed a 100% efficacy against severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and has an impact on the drop in hospitalisations.

The Phase III study had 25,800 subjects aged 18 to 98 years, including 10% aged above 60 years. Credit: Ali Raza / Pixabay.

Bharat Biotech has reported that interim analysis results from the Phase III trial of its Covid-19 vaccine COVAXIN showed a 100% efficacy against severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and has an impact on the drop in hospitalisations.

Developed by the company with seed strains received from the Indian Council of Medical Research’s (ICMR) National Institute of Virology, COVAXIN is a highly purified and inactivated vaccine.

The Phase III study had 25,800 subjects aged 18 to 98 years, including 10% aged above 60 years.

Bharat Biotech noted that the first occurrence of PCR-confirmed symptomatic (mild, moderate or severe) Covid-19 in 14 days on receiving the second vaccine in healthy adults at baseline, formed the trial’s primary endpoint.

The second interim analysis is based on accruing over 87 symptomatic Covid-19 cases. However, owing to the current surge in cases, 127 symptomatic cases were reported, providing a point estimate of vaccine efficacy of 78% against mild, moderate and severe disease.

Furthermore, a 70% efficacy against asymptomatic Covid-19 was observed indicating reduced transmission in individuals receiving COVAXIN.

Safety and efficacy results from the final analysis will be available in June and the final report will be submitted to a peer-reviewed publication.

Based on the achievement of the success criteria, placebo recipients have now become eligible to receive two doses of COVAXIN.

Bharat Biotech chairman and managing director Dr Krishna Ella said: “COVAXIN has demonstrated an excellent safety record in human clinical trials and in usage under emergency use.

“The efficacy data against severe Covid-19 and asymptomatic infections is highly significant, as this helps reduce hospitalisations and disease transmission, respectively.”

The company has delivered millions of vaccine doses and administered in India and many other countries with outstanding safety record marked by negligible or no appearance of adverse events after vaccination.

Bharat Biotech intends to expand the COVAXIN development with clinical trials planned in India and globally to assess its safety and immunogenicity in younger people, the impact of booster doses of the vaccine as well as its protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants.

In February, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences said that Covaxin may provide immunity against the disease for nine to 12 months, as per the mathematical calculations.
Related Companies
CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Anti-corruption organisation raises concerns over £3.7bn-worth of Covid contracts

Transparency International UK said those with political access appeared to be favoured.

 by Jack Peat
April 22, 2021
in Politics


Coronavirus contracts awarded by the UK Government worth more than £3.7 billion raise at least one red flag for possible corruption, according to a report.

Transparency International UK says that how the Government handled bids for supplying personal protective equipment (PPE) and other pandemic contracts appeared to favour those with political access.

The independent anti-corruption organisation identified 73 contracts worth more than £3.7 billion – equivalent to 20 per cent of all contracts between February and November of last year – whose award “merits further investigation”.

Case of concern

It found that of the cases of concern, 24 contracts for PPE worth £1.6 billion were awarded to those with known political connections to the Conservative Party.

A review of these “high-risk contracts” identified 15 areas of concern, such as uncompetitive tendering and politically connected contractors.

The organisation’s report, which reviewed nearly 1,000 contracts worth £18 billion, said the system designed to triage offers of PPE supplies appeared to be “partisan and riven with systemic bias”.


It said questions remained about the “VIP” lane, used to fast track offers of PPE from companies referred by MPs, peers and senior officials, such as who knew about the route and when.

Transparency International UK found that between February and November, some 98.9 per cent of Covid-related contracts by value (£17.8 billion) were awarded without any form of competition.

“There are now very serious questions for the government to answer”

Chief executive Daniel Bruce said: “There are now very serious questions for the Government to answer with more than a fifth of the money spent on purchases in response to the pandemic raising red flags.

“The Government’s approach to procurement during this critical period has already dented public confidence at a time when the trust of its citizens is most needed.

“We must now have full accountability for the eye-watering amounts of taxpayers’ money spent on the response – with the award for each of the 73 contracts we highlight in our report subject to a thorough audit.”

The organisation has made a series of recommendations to the Government in the report, including providing full transparency over the “VIP” lane and the return of open, competitive contracting as a default for public procurement.

A Government spokesman responded: “During the pandemic our priority has always been to protect the public and save lives, and we have used existing rules to buy life-saving equipment and supplies, such as PPE for the NHS front line.

“All PPE procurement went through the same assurance process and due diligence as carried out on every contract – ministers have no role in awarding them.

“The priority list was widely advertised across Government as a way of more quickly triaging offers of support.”
Priority

Last November saw the National Audit Office (NAO), the public spending watchdog, publish a scathing report which criticised the way normal standards of transparency had been set aside during pandemic procurement.

The NAO said firms recommended by MPs, peers and ministers’ offices were given priority as the Government sought to find supplies of masks, gloves and aprons when the pandemic hit in the spring.

Meanwhile, the High Court ruled earlier this year that the Government had unlawfully failed to publish details of coronavirus-related contracts worth billions.

The Good Law Project took legal action against the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) for its “wholesale failure” to disclose details of contracts agreed during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“Endemic cronyism”

In response to the Transparency International UK report, shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Rachel Reeves accused the Government of “endemic cronyism” in its procurement.

She said: “The scale of corruption risk to vast amounts of taxpayer money revealed in this report is shocking, as is the evidence of endemic cronyism flowing through the Government’s contracting.

“Standards on public contracts have slipped so far under this Conservative government that this would be embarrassing if it wasn’t so serious.

“Labour have consistently asked for the Government to get the basics right – calling on them to publish the names of businesses that won lucrative Covid contracts through the ‘VIP fast lane’, ramp up transparency and come clean to taxpayers about the £2 billion worth of contracts that have gone to Tory friends and donors.”

The image of Muslim women

“We refuse to be hijab-wearing princesses”

Among Muslims, the image of women as "cossetted hijab-wearing princesses" is frequently invoked. But Muslim women have long wanted to be more. In her essay, Karoline Roscher-Lagzouli explores how they can find a new approach to their Muslim femininity, beyond patriarchal ideals and the hackneyed Western debate on headscarves

The first Muslim women in Islamic history weren’t well-protected hijab princesses; they were strong women who are still shining beacons today: warriors, clever businesswomen, scholars and teachers of men.

Khadija was the first to believe in the still-uncertain, fledging Prophet. She reassured him when he lay hidden under his blanket in her house, and encouraged him to follow his destiny.

Aisha, the Prophet’s young wife, passed on more than 1200 hadiths, taught Islam to the men and did not shy away from correcting their interpretations when she thought it necessary.

Hafsa preserved the Koran as a written text and, so we are told, thereby ended the dispute among the Prophet’s companions after his death about the correct form in which the Koran should be recited.

They were all strong women, who not only stood up autonomously for their rights, but made substantial contributions to the transmission of Islam and Islamic theology. They were operating in a patriarchal society, in the context of which Muhammad’s teachings – especially with regard to the position of women – must have seemed downright revolutionary. 

The women of early Islamic history prayed quite self-evidently alongside the men, in one room of the mosque. These houses of prayer had no dividing walls or separate entrances for the different sexes. In the opinion of a few classical Islamic scholars, such as Ibn Hanbal (780 - 855) or even Ibn Taymiya (1263 -1328), who paved the way for the withdrawn and spiritual Salafists, a woman could act as a female imam under certain circumstances and lead men in prayer. Today, the majority of Muslims react to this view with rejection and incomprehension, to put it mildly.  

The revolutionary spirit seems to have been lost

Today, the actions and practices of the Prophet and his companions both male and female – the Sunnah – are held up as an example for us to follow by venerable Islamic scholars. But Muhammad’s revolutionary spirit seems to have been lost, buried beneath the dust of the centuries. 


Obsessed with a piece of fabric: "What would become of the critics of Islam and enlightened thinkers, the oh-so-noble liberators of women, without the headscarf?" asks Karoline Roscher-Lagzouli in her essay. "What would they find to write about if the last unregenerate woman were to finally take off her scarf?" For the self-appointed liberators of Muslim women, free Muslim women are only those who have discarded their headscarves. It is inconceivable that some might want to make their own, self-determined decisions

What can be read in the Koran as the start of a process leading to fairness and equal rights is too often not followed to its conclusion, but submerged under an avalanche of men’s fears. These nudges towards equality are lost in the anxiety about somehow being associated with feminism. The term feminism is sometimes used to silence awkward Muslim women who advocate for a self-determined image of Muslim women. Yet even Muhammad may well have been considered a feminist in the social context of his day.

The image of the "ideal Muslim woman"

Today, Muslim men writing supposedly Islamic advice books, and in particular on social media, invoke an image of the "ideal Muslim womani" that is reminiscent of the virtuous American housewife of the 1950s. But in doing so, they don’t see the image of toxic masculinity in which they themselves are becoming entangled.

They lock women away, turning them into cossetted hijab princesses kept in golden cages. And here, the hijab becomes evidence of a Muslim woman’s virtue – the longer the cloth, the more devout the woman, you might think, if you were to believe the motivational sayings and pretty pictures of cute hijab princesses. They turn women into objects, jewels that are merely decorative and have no needs of their own.

The Muslim woman, destined to save the "lost sons in the West"

You can’t force belief, yet a woman must not allow herself any doubt, any wavering. There can be no cracks in the facade of the happy Muslim woman, who always smiles, who should always be devout and humble before her husband, her God. That is the fate laid out for you, sister; are you going to go against what God has ordained?


Muslim women also want to skateboard with a hijab or practice sports like the boxer Zeina Nassar, who was the first German to enter the boxing ring wearing a headscarf. They no longer want to be "cossetted hijab princesses" kept in golden cages, writes Karoline Roscher-Lagzouli, "jewels" to be sure, but without needs of their own

For the lost Muslim sons, the headscarf must seem like a last foothold in a postcolonial world, in which the old masculinities are no longer valid. They cling to it, having little more with which to counter Western achievements than the ideal of the Muslim woman. By way of contrast to the cold career-woman of the West, she is supposed to replace a lost homeland, unfulfilled dreams and longings. She is a tender angel, a healer of secret wounds, a mother and a balm for injured masculinity.

She is not permitted to make mistakes. If she took the headscarf off, whole worlds would fall. They want to feel a final remnant of power by defining her identity as a woman, a Muslim woman, even though they have lost their own identities.

The headscarf as an obsession

Your scarf and the hair beneath it don’t belong to you. They belong to the brothers, and also to the debates that are going on above your head. Women’s clothing is only mentioned twice in the Koran. These are two verses which, together with a few traditions handed down from the time of the Prophet and his companions, can be seen as an exhortation to Muslim women to cover their heads, and are thus interpreted by the classical Islamic schools in this way.

In a perhaps infinitely wise piece of foresight, however, the Omniscient left open exactly what this covering or clothing should look like. Neither do the traditions handed down from the time of the Prophet – which we view only through men’s spectacles clouded by the dust of centuries – provide many more hints. And yet the wise men know exactly how much or how little fabric a woman is permitted. 

Two brief mentions in the Koran, and yet there seems to be no issue more important than women’s bodies. From furious Internet preachers to self-proclaimed female imams, all the way to Alice-Schwarzer feminism: the veil dominates every idea of what it is to be a woman in Islam

 

The dream of falling veils

How the situation of Muslims of both sexes is assessed in Germany seems to depend first and foremost on women’s hair. The self-appointed advocates for Muslim women see only free women without headscarves, and unfree women with them. There is no provision for individual, autonomous decisions on the matter of headscarves. Here, too, Muslim women are degraded into oppressed objects who need saving.

What would become of the critics of Islam and enlightened thinkers, the oh-so-noble liberators of women, without the headscarf? What would they find to write about if the last unregenerate woman were to finally take off her scarf? They dream of falling veils like the colonial rulers, who were perhaps the first to light upon the “liberation from the headscarf“ as means of subjugating whole societies.

“We want to do more than carry shopping bags”

Self-reflection and critical questioning can lead Muslim women to new approaches to their religion that are free from male dictates. Muslim women called upon to look at the reality of their lives and their activities, and to measure them against the yardsticks of freedom, against the revelations and practices of Muhammad, which were aimed at equal rights and rational thought. Within his historical context, his practices really can be described as feminist and progressive.  

Karoline Roscher-Lagzouli (photo: private)
Muslim women want a self-determined life, with or without hijab. "The scarf covers our hair, not our brains. Muslim women are on the move all over the world," writes Carolina Roscher-Lagzouli in her essay. "They are abandoning traditional patriarchal images in the desire to be free." Today's Muslim women will no longer be quietly satisfied with men's explanations. They are reading the Koran and the scriptures anew, "and doing it themselves," as Roscher-Lagzouli points out. "We are loud and angry, we are leading revolutions and we will flip you off if you insult us in the street. We are here – and we’re not going anywhere"

You cannot force freedom. And nor does freedom come from women showing their hair. Patriarchal structures don’t depend on a piece of cloth or a religion, as the self-appointed liberators would see if they could get beyond their focus on visible hair and take a look at the world, or even just look outside their own front doors.

We women have long been visible and audible. We want to be more than cleaners. We want to do more than carry Aldi bags and walk five paces behind our bearded husbands. We want to be more than many people will allow us to be. And we can be more than we sometimes think we can.

Riding skateboards and dancing with brightly-coloured scarves

The world is changing. The scarf covers our hair, not our brains. With or without a hijab, Muslim women are on the move all over the world. They are abandoning traditional, patriarchal images in the desire to be free. They are writing, researching and reinventing themselves.

Hijabi is becoming a lifestyle, the headscarf a fashion item, and a feminist statement as well as a spiritual one. We want to ride skateboards and dance with brightly-coloured scarves. We will no longer be silently content with men’s explanations; we are reading the Koran and the scriptures anew, for ourselves this time.

We are loud and angry, we are leading revolutions and we'll flip you off if you insult us in the street. We are here, and we’re not going away.

Karoline Roscher-Lagzouli

© Qantara 2021

Translated from the German by Ruth Martin

Karoline Roscher-Lagzouli studied Islamic Studies and works as an author.

EARTH DAY 2021
Four steps this Earth Day to avert environmental catastrophe

With political pressure and these smart policy goals, a new sense of the common good could be within reach


Extinction Rebellion protesters at the Bank of England, London, July 2020. Photograph: Barcroft Media/Getty Images

THE GUARDIAN
Thu 22 Apr 2021 09.00

Today is Earth Day, which should provide us with an opportunity to pause and confront the awful predicament humanity faces. We eat microplastics, breathe pollution and watch other life-forms decline to extinction. We face intersecting poverty, health, climate and biodiversity crises. Our global predicament is that consumption by the wealthy is driving us towards planetary disaster, yet billions live in poverty and need to consume more to live well. In this cycle, any version of “success” only hastens catastrophe.

Solving this conundrum requires much more than merely reducing the impact of high-consumption lifestyles. Similarly, if we focus on increasing efficiency this tends to increase resource use: make cars cheaper to run and people drive more. The core of any response that truly rises to this challenge will be interlocking policies that drive society on to an equitable and sustainable path.

Here are four policies that work together to maximise people’s welfare and freedoms, drive essential technological innovation, and allow society to operate within Earth’s limits. At their heart is human dignity coupled with breaking the dynamic of ever-greater production and consumption. Together they could quickly reorient the doomsday machine that is today’s global economy.

The first policy is universal basic income (UBI) whereby a financial payment is made to every citizen, unconditionally, at a level above their subsistence needs. UBI is needed to break the link between work and consumption. Critically, there is a constant awareness that we all need to be ever more productive at work, otherwise someone else will take our job. In response we have all said: I work hard, so I deserve that fancy meal, new gadget or long-haul holiday. Increased consumption is the reward for being ever more productive at work. Indeed, it makes little sense to curb our consumption when we know we will have to be ever more productive at work, regardless of our choices.

Fears that UBI may lead to laziness are unfounded: small-scale trials of UBI show people work hard and are typically more entrepreneurial. Crucially, those UBI recipients had lower anxiety, stress and health problems. UBI allows people to say no to undesirable work, unless it is well-paid enough. People can also say yes to opportunities that often lie out of reach, as they can study or retrain. And clearly there is an immense amount of work to do, from caring for others, to producing what we all need to live well. With UBI we would increasingly choose work that we thought mattered, rather than working ever harder to consume ever more.

The second policy framework is what I call universal shared services – others have argued for universal basic services, but what’s needed must be far beyond basic. Many countries have some of these, from healthcare to education. These are the services everyone needs and their delivery has society-wide effects. Core are health, education, energy, housing and leisure services. Providing these universally lowers financial costs due to economies of scale, and can substantially lower environmental costs. Such universal services make societies more equal and drive them towards more sustainability if two further policies are enacted.

The third policy tackles the climate emergency via legally binding ever-declining carbon budgets. This framework exists in the UK, following the 2008 Climate Change Act. The government must reduce UK carbon emissions to within a carbon budget. These five-year budgets decline to a zero allocation by 2050. This act also created an independent statutory body that analyses data and advises the government on how to achieve each successive carbon budget. The advice results in new legislation for specific sectors and drives technological innovation as the zero emissions long-term destination is clear. As a result the UK is world-leading in reducing carbon emissions.

The fourth policy uses the same declining budget principle, but tackles material use rather than energy generation. Similarly, declining “plastic use budgets” can set society on a pathway to eliminating plastic pollution. The same principle can tackle metal use to limit the damage from mining. A budget for the total amount of land used to produce the food a country consumes can limit the footprint of agriculture, central to halting biodiversity loss. As with carbon emissions, scientists can now track the production and use of plastic, metal and food. Scientific monitoring and new “declining budget” policies could keep material use within Earth’s limits.

These four policy goals together would drive people’s welfare up and our environmental impacts down. They are not new, nor are they very radical. We already, for example, assure incomes for pensioners in many countries, healthcare is universal in a number of countries, and declining carbon budgets are being used to help drive today’s energy transition.

But how to pay for it? The first response of the powerful to change is to argue that the costs are too great. They rarely are. After two decades of arguments about the high costs of tackling climate change, consultants to big business McKinsey now report that the cost of Europe reaching net zero emissions by 2050 is itself net zero. The investments literally pay for themselves. Revenue-raising options should also help to implement the four policies more cheaply; these could include taxes on rentiers financial transactions, and high energy or material use. Of course, without pressure from popular protest movements and political parties, nothing will change.

Yet systemic thinking on how to respond to global problems is increasing. The Covid-19 pandemic has produced a new seriousness by graphically revealing that there actually is no “outside” of society or the environment. When there’s no such thing as “outside”, the neoliberal mantra of avoiding taxes and regulations to keep wealth to yourself makes less and less sense. With political pressure and smart policies a new universality that breaks with centuries of exploiting people and the environment could be within reach. This is undoubtedly a very tough task, but we can’t afford to fail.


Simon Lewis is professor of global change science at University College London and University of Leeds