How relaxing Covid-19 restrictions could pave the way for vaccine resistance

Peer reviewed – opinion - humans

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA

Relaxing Covid-19 restrictions could pave the way for new vaccine-resistant virus mutations – according to researchers at the University of East Anglia and the Earlham Institute.
A new article published today warns against relaxing Covid-19 restrictions prematurely.
It describes how we are in an ‘arms race’ with the virus and how rising cases could provide opportunities for it to evolve into even more transmissible variants.
The researchers fear that any new variants could be more virulent, more vaccine resistant, and more dangerous for children and vulnerable groups such as transplant patients.
Lead author and editor in chief of Virulence, Prof Kevin Tyler from UEA’s Norwich Medical School, said: “Over the past 17 months, economies, education and mental well-being have suffered tremendously due to the restrictions imposed in an attempt to stem the spread of the pandemic.
“Although vaccines have weakened the link between infection and mortality, they should not be used as an argument to justify a broad change in policy for countries experiencing an exponential increase in infection numbers.
“This is because most of the world’s population are still unvaccinated, and even in countries with efficient vaccination programmes, a significant proportion of society, particularly children, remain unprotected.
“Relaxing restrictions boosts transmission and allows the virus population to expand, which enhances its adaptive evolutionary potential and increases the risk of vaccine-resistant strains emerging by a process known as antigenic drift.
“Put simply, limiting the spread of Covid-19 as much as possible restricts the number of future deaths by restricting the rate with which new variants arise.
“Successive SARS-CoV-2 variants such as the Alpha and Delta variants, have displaced one another since the outbreak.
“Slowing down the rate of new variant emergence requires us to act fast and decisively, reducing the number of infected people including children with vaccines and in combination with other public health policies.
“In most cases, children are not vaccinated against Covid-19 because the risk to them becoming seriously ill is very low. But new strains may evolve with higher transmissibility in children, and vaccinating children may become necessary to control the emergence of new variants.
“In other words, a policy of relaxing restrictions while children are not vaccinated, risks inadvertently selecting for virulent variants that are better able to infect children and are also more problematic in vulnerable groups.
"Children may be particularly at risk because they are the only group that has remained unvaccinated. But there is no guarantee that the virus won't evolve the ability to infect children too, and the data shows that new variants are relatively more often found in younger age groups.
"Only when a large proportion of the world’s population is vaccinated, or has acquired immunity from infection, can we relax other social measures.
Co-lead author and evolutionary biologist Prof Cock Van Oosterhout, from UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences, said: “We have an arms race on our hands.
“On the human side, the arms race is fought with vaccines, new technology such as the NHS Covid-19 App, and our behavioural change, but the virus fights back by adapting and evolving.
“It is unlikely we will get ahead in this arms race unless we can significantly reduce the population size of the virus.
“But given that the infection rate is about the same now as it was during the first wave, we are pretty much ‘at evens’ with this virus. And as with many other coevolutionary arms races, there are no winners.
“This is what evolutionary biologists mean when we say that coevolution is a ‘zero-sum game’. But what you cannot do is suddenly drop your guard in the middle of an arms race. That gives your opponent - the virus - a real advantage. So we must continue doing the things we have been doing for the past 18 months, particularly in countries where the number of infected people is increasing.
“Entrusting public health measures to personal responsibility is a laissez-faire approach that many governments are now taking towards Covid-19 management.
“During exponential transmission of virus, we need an ongoing, mandatory public health policy that includes social distancing and the compulsory wearing of facemasks in crowded indoor spaces such as shops and on public transport.
“Our current vaccination programmes alone will not end the pandemic and scientific evidence suggests that we can only safely start to relax social restrictions when the R number is below one,” he added.
Co-author and director of the Earlham Institute (EI), Prof Neil Hall, said: "As long as there are large numbers of unvaccinated people around the world transmitting the virus, we're all at risk.
"High numbers of Covid-19 cases increase the likelihood the virus will evolve to become more virulent, more transmissible, or capable of evading vaccines. It's critical we continue using public health measures to bring transmission rates down. We have to co-exist with caution - if we ignore global health policies which have proven to reduce infection, the virus will further adapt.
"When we weigh up the benefits and risks in vaccinating young people, we have to consider the impact on wider society too. The current approach to protecting young people seems to be letting them reach herd immunity through infection. Every day that approach continues, we give the virus the upper hand and prolong this pandemic - increasing the burden on healthcare systems and economies."

###

‘COVID-19 adaptive evolution during the pandemic – Implications of new SARS-CoV-2 variants on public health policies’ is published in the journal Virulence on July 28, 2021.
The article was led by researchers at UEA in collaboration with Norwich Research Park colleagues at the Earlham Institute, as well as it the University of Pittsburgh, the University of California Davis, the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, and King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

---

JOURNAL

Virulence

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Commentary/editorial

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

COVID-19 adaptive evolution during the pandemic – Implications of new SARS-CoV-2 variants on public health policies

Open letter criticizing Apple's plan to scan iPhones for child sexual abuse material attracts 5,000 signatures

Kevin Shalvey

An Apple store employee in New York. Mark Lennihan/AP Photo

An open letter signed by 5,000 asked Apple to rethink photo scans for child sexual abuse material.

The scanning "threatens to undermine fundamental privacy protections," the letter said.
WhatsApp chief Will Cathcart and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden voiced concern.
10 Things in Tech: Get the latest tech trends & innovations

An open letter asking Apple to rethink its rollout of photo scanning to identify child sexual abuse material has been signed by about 5,000 organizations and individuals.

"While child exploitation is a serious problem, and while efforts to combat it are almost unquestionably well-intentioned, Apple's proposal introduces a backdoor that threatens to undermine fundamental privacy protections for all users of Apple products," the letter said.

Apple on Thursday said it would later this year begin scanning photos for child sexual abuse material (CSAM.) The scans would create data hashes of the photos that would be compared to CSAM databases held by anti-abuse organizations, according to Apple.

"Before an image is stored in iCloud Photos, an on-device matching process is performed for that image against the known CSAM hashes," Apple said.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation on Thursday published a blog opposing the update, calling it a "backdoor" that could be used to spy on Apple users. Parts of that blog were excerpted on the open letter's website, appleprivacyletter.com.

The letter was posted on Friday, and by Sunday morning it had been signed about 5,000 times. The list of co-signers was a who's who of privacy advocates and organizations, including Freedom of the Press Foundation, where NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is a board member and president.

Apple CEO Tim Cook in Oakland. Noah Berger/AP Photo

"No matter how well-intentioned, Apple is rolling out mass surveillance to the entire world with this," Snowden said on Twitter. "Make no mistake: if they can scan for kiddie porn today, they can scan for anything tomorrow. They turned a trillion dollars of devices into iNarcs—*without asking.*"

Some who signed the letter identified themselves as current or former Apple employees. Insider has reached out to Apple for comment.

WhatsApp head Will Cathcart on Friday said Apple's decision to scan images raised concerns. "I think this is the wrong approach and a setback for people's privacy all over the world," he wrote in a Twitter thread.

In another Twitter thread, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said he'd tried hard to see the move from Apple's point of view. "But inescapably, this is government spyware installed by Apple based on a presumption of guilt," he wrote.

Sweeney's company has previously criticized Apple in a well-publicized court battle over its App Store rules.

Fox News' attack on teachers part of a larger assault on democracy: AFT president

Ray Hartmann
August 08, 2021

Randi Weingarten (CNN)

With schools set to reopen in less than a month, the national debate has grown hotter over how public education should respond to the reality of a resurging pandemic.

Among the biggest issues: Should teachers be required to become vaccinated to return to the classrooms? But that's hardly the only raging question.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) sits in the eye of the storm as public education becomes ever more engulfed in America's culture war. Attacks from the political right have hardly been limited to vaccine questions, with rash claims about Critical Race Theory (CRT) -- among efforts to rewrite history-- also in the forefront.

The nation's second-largest teachers union and its president, Randi Weingarten, have become a favorite target of right-wing media. In Weingarten's view, it's all part of an overarching effort to attack teachers. And truth.

Raw Story caught up with Weingarten Saturday for this exclusive interview:

Q. What is the latest on the union's position regarding vaccine mandates?

A. The circumstances have changed in the last few weeks. The Delta variant is so virulent, yet kids under 12 can't get a vaccine yet. The good news is that it looks like full approval by the FDA is in the offing of these vaccines, and that's one of the issues people have been concerned with. These factors have given rise to us reconsidering the other measures to get more and more people vaccinated, including requiring vaccinations. We're in the middle of those conversations with our leaders and members.

Q. So, your position might be changing because of the evolving situation?

A. We are 1000% behind vaccines. They are the most effective way of dealing with the variant. But until this moment, we've thought that voluntarily shots in the arms were the most effective way to get more people vaccinated in this very polarized world and with all the misinformation that's out there. But circumstances have changed so we're thinking about other ways of creating vaccine access, including evaluating our position on employer mandates.

Q. How do concerns about the effects of the Delta variant on kids factor into that thinking?


A. We're very concerned, particularly since younger children don't have access to the vaccine. We're seeing a changing circumstance in the last three weeks, and we're seeing in places like Florida, Louisiana and Texas that this variant can affect children far more than the virus previously did.

Q. Do you have a timetable for that decision? Perhaps in the next week?

A. I would say it's sometime soon.

Q. What is your reaction to how you're being betrayed in the conservative media -- personally and as a union -- as one of the main reasons, along with Dr. Anthony Fauci, as to why schools have been closed and so forth?

A. There is a group of people in America led by Fox News that wants to keep the anxiety, the fear, the chaos, the disinformation and people angry and on edge. That's what they're doing. It's terribly unfair and misplaced. But I'm a big girl and I'm going to my job, which is to get schools open -- and keep them open -- in a safe way. That is what educators in America want. That is what children in America need. And that is what we at the AFT are trying to do. Teachers want what children need.

The post-truth society which has also helped fuel the Big Lie about voting is very disturbing and is really undermining of democracy. And public schooling is the key to democracy. So, these all have political overtones and I understand it. But we don't whine about it: We just organize. I just wish they didn't have the kind of megaphone they have because they're scaring a lot of people and creating a lot of ground for anxiety and hate, and it's just wrong.

This is not about me, it's about my members, it's about teachers, it's about bus drivers. It's about the people who every single day, have been out there engaging kids in the last 16 months. It's about the nurses who, regardless of where things were in terms of COVID, were out there at the bedside. These folks are real heroes. They've engaged kids. They've protected families. They've helped nurse people back to health. And yet, they get scapegoated at every turn. And some of it is also by the mainstream media on the issues of vaccine mandates.

Look at what we're dealing with. We're dealing with lots of these anti-vaxxers, who are really, really resistant, and we have to meet fear and we have to meet misinformation with facts.

Educators have been engaging kids and they have been kids' lifelines, but they have been thrown a lot of stuff that they've had to deal with. "Remote, hybrid, in-school, hybrid, remote." They have done everything they could to help our kids be engaged, survive and now thrive.

This is about the undermining of our profession, it's about the undermining of teachers, and it's about not actually crediting or honoring them for who they are in the work they have done.

Q. Speaking of your work, how has the debate about Critical Race Theory impacted your lives?

A. In terms of this issue of our teaching honest history, I'm a high school social studies teacher. I taught in the 90s. Our kids need to know the history of this country. And they need to be able to understand and to have the skills to assess current events. That's what history teachers do, and this is important for all kids.

Those of us who've taught history and social studies for years are a little stunned by this debate. Like really, we can't teach slavery anymore? It's just like core curriculum in some states where we must teach that slavery was a betrayal of our Founding Fathers, which is absolutely not true.

Yes, some of our history is uncomfortable. It's uncomfortable talking about the fact that our country had a legalized system of slavery until the Civil War and had lots of other legalized systems of discrimination like Jim Crow. That is uncomfortable, but our job is to make sure that kids can get through uncomfortable situations. And if they do, it's going to give them a skill set for the future. Our job is to help them become critical thinkers, to help them, assess these issues going forward. And it's our job to teach history and teach the effects of history and to teach current events, and the effects of it. That is part and parcel of a full education for children.

We don't teach CRT in pre-K through high school. This is a college-level analysis of law and whether systemic racism exists in some of the laws and in this country. And so, what's happened here is again an undermining of public education, an undermining of teachers, an attempt to scare parents. And using it in the elections -- as Steve Bannon and others have said -- to try to stop what's been the trend of more families and women and working moms and stay-at-home moms in the suburbs starting to vote for Democrats. So, we know where it's coming from, and we know who is behind it. But at the end of the day, the consequence of this group of people winning is that it's going to hurt our kids.

Q. Are you seeing similar controversy over how history or current-events teachers might portray the insurrection at the Capitol?

A. Yes, I think that that's part of this. This is all about the push to pretend that January 6 didn't happen or to create a narrative that, that nothing bad happened that day. But our democracy could have died that day. Think about the difference between how that day is viewed, through a political lens in the United States, versus how 911 is viewed as we get to the 20th anniversary. It tells you a lot about the problems in the country. There's a push to stop us from teaching the truth or create context for these very important moments. What happened that day? Why did it happen? These are legitimate questions that you teach in an age-appropriate way through public education.

Q. What do you think is the legacy of Donald Trump and Betty DeVos for teachers and public education?


A. Betsy Devos is a destabilizer. We've have had Education Secretaries who believed that there should be vouchers and charters and a competitive environment in schools. But they also believed in public education. And while they believed that a public school should be the best it can be and that you had to have a system of great neighborhood public schools and public-school choice, this was the first Secretary of Education who didn't believe that. She didn't believe in a public system. She didn't believe we should be investing in a public system as a primary way of helping all kids thrive and learn. So, at every moment that she could, she destabilized it. This was a destabilizing strategy. And Trump believed in the chaos theory of governing instead of the unifying theory of governing. He believed in chaos and divisiveness and that's what you see here. The disturbing piece is that truth took a second seat to wanting power.

 

Social experiment in Germany brings young and old together

Migration and demographic change are transforming societies worldwide. A documentary film about a German project has a vision for the future.

    

The documentary "Wir alle. Das Dorf" describes a long-term project

It's a dreary scene: a few people standing on an empty field in the rain. Nothing about this place seems promising. But the people don't seem to care. Some are curious, some euphoric, but all are confident. "Here's my bed," says one woman as she points to a spot on the ground, and then jumps for joy.

The plan is to build a village on this field in the Wendland region of the German state of Lower Saxony — a village that is ecological, intercultural and based on solidarity. With the help of its own cooperative, rents will be kept affordable. 300 people are to live here, consisting of 100 older people, 100 younger people — preferably with families — and 100 refugees. The idea is for them to be there and to look out for each other.

Demographic change is a global issue 

The question of how we want to live in the future is shaped not only by the climate, but also by demographic change. Most societies are aging — in Germany, one in two people are older than 45, according to surveys by the Federal Statistical Office. In Indonesia, the average age is expected to rise by eight years by 2050, and in China by more than nine years. Who will take care of the elderly? And how do we prevent an increasing gap between the generations?

The number of single households in Germany has also been steadily rising, from 34% to 42% between 1991 and 2019. One-third of women living alone are between 60 and 79 years old. In rural areas, population figures are declining as people move to the cities. Demand for alternative forms of living, such as shared multi-generational living arrangements, is increasing.

That scene in the empty field happened five years ago. Filmmakers Antonia Traulsen and Claire Roggan captured it for their documentary, Wir alle. Das Dorf (All of Us. The Village). "It's a socio-political and cultural question of how we want to imagine life in the future," says Traulsen, who actually lives close to the experimental village.

Bringing together different generations and people from different backgrounds

The filmmakers accompanied the project for four years. "At first, we didn't understand where their euphoria was coming from," says Traulsen. It became clear over time "that people really care about making a difference."

Unexpected conflicts

12 houses now stand on the former farmland, and about 50 people live there. By the end of the year, the number of residents is expected to rise to about 90. Negotiations are underway to purchase another plot of land. "Demand is huge," says Hauke Stichling-Pehlke, one of the project's initiators. He describes himself and others who were involved early on as pioneers.

Rural structures everywhere are disintegrating, says Stichling-Pehlke. "That's why this is not just a housing project, but a hub in the district that is sustainable and fit for the future." He says it's about continuing to develop the community together, and not just the one in the village. "When I see people pursuing their visions it's already close to the initial idea," he adds.

The film also shows conflicts. In the early phase of the project, locals and refugees discussed and agreed to floor plans for the future houses. Years later, when the houses were being built, one refugee family had different ideas, making it unlikely they could move into the village. One woman reacted with anger, arguing everyone agreed when the plans were presented, while another admitted that perhaps the refugees were not sufficiently involved.

The initiators, Hauke Stichling-Pehlke and Thomas Hagelstein

"The refugees had other problems at the time, some didn't even have their residency status clarified," says Roggan. "For these people, it was about basic things; for them, it wasn't tangible that there might be a house here in three years."

In the wake of the 2015/2016 refugee crisis, the German society was faced with the question of how to integrate the refugees. Rarely were refugees asked how they wanted to be integrated. The village project shows that there is no blueprint for integration — not even if it is well-intentioned.

The film also reveals cultural traditions and reservations. A young woman from Afghanistan says at a meeting that she has to take care of her parents and stay close by, even though she had to attend college. The group reassures her that she doesn't have to stay in the area because they would help out, like organizing doctor's appointments. But the notion was unthinkable for her — family takes care of family.

Good at compromise

At first glance, the people who were part of the initial group don't seem as diverse as the project proclaims to be — there's a Waldorf school teacher, a remedial teacher, an educator, a few leftist members of the anti-nuclear power movement.

Antonia Traulsen and Claire Roggan, the filmmakers

But tensions arise even in what looks like a pretty homogeneous group. Everyone is expected to contribute as much as they can and want to, but there are no binding guidelines. But is it fair that some people contribute more than others, even though they all pursue the same goal?

"It's impressive how much the people listen and constantly question themselves instead of blaming others," says Roggan. Her co-filmmaker, Antonia Traulsen, says the constant negotiation of compromises is a reason the village is thriving and growing. "It's an art to stay in the conversation even in disputes and not to be offended, but to enjoy the variety of opinions."

In this respect, this social experiment on a field in Lower Saxony might be considered a test run for the future coexistence of society.

The filmmakers are currently touring cinemas with Wir alle. Das Dorf.

This article was translated from German.

Myanmar: Protests mark anniversary of 1988 uprising

A third of a century after facing off against a violent military regime, protesters in Myanmar are still on the streets. The flash protests show no signs of stopping.


The military's violent response has not been able to quell the ongoing popular protests across Myanmar


Protesters came out in cities across Myanmar on Sunday to protest against the military junta and to mark the 33rd anniversary of an uprising against military rule that was violently put down.

People took to the streets in the main cities of Yangon, Mandalay, Sagaing and others, local news reported. The military has faced ongoing popular opposition since it launched a coup in early February that ousted the elected government and civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Protesters remembered the thousands of people, many of which were students, that rose up against military rule in 1988. That uprising was crushed in a bloody crackdown.

"Thirty-three years ago today, they [armed forces] killed many civilians and they are still killing the people," Thet Naing, a protester in Yangon, told the Deutsche Presse-Agentur news agency.

Protesters adapt to military violence

Demonstrations against the current junta have also faced violent responses from the military. According to a local monitoring group, over 900 people have been killed in clashes with the military.

The regime has not, however, been able to quell the protests. Activists have been organizing flash mobs that quickly rally to express popular dissent and then melt away before armed forces can react.

They also organized online campaigns, bringing people out, dressed in red, to show the eight-finger salute, which has become one of the symbols of the protest movement, and to hold banners saying: "Let's return the old blood debt of 1988 in 2021."

MYANMAR: PROTESTERS HIT WITH TEAR GAS, STUN GUNS
Taking to the streets
A protester wearing a gas mask sits on a blocked road in Yangon on Tuesday, March 2. Police in Yangon fired tear gas on Monday at crowds who returned to the streets to protest last month's coup.  12345678

New generation, same struggle

The military dictatorship 33 years ago responded to the massive pro-democracy movement by firing on protesters and jailing thousands of people.

The movement launched Aung San Suu Kyi — who was arrested at the time of the putsch and is facing a series of charges including possession of illegal walkie talkies — as a pro-democracy activist. She was known for being the daughter of General Aung San who had fought for independence from the British empire.

"In 1988, our country sacrificed a lot — many people lost their lives. But the dictatorship is still alive," Ko Sai Win, a protester in Mandalay, told the AFP news agency. "It is like a black shadow on our country."

ab/jlw (dpa, AFP)

A ‘Christian nation’ no longer: why Australia’s religious right loses policy battles even when it wins elections

The Conversation
August 08, 2021

Despite having a devoutly Christian prime minister, the role of the Christian right in Australia has waned in recent years. Mick Tsikas/AAP

Conservative Christians are prominent in Australia's Liberal-National Coalition parties. Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott are two of the most devout and theologically conservative prime ministers in Australian history.

State Coalition parties have had influxes of religious conservatives as the Coalition absorbs Christian parties and their voters. At the same time, the Christian right is suffering major defeats on its biggest issues.

Since 2018, Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia have all liberalised their abortion laws. This happened under Coalition governments in NSW and SA, to the dismay of some conservatives. Abbott and Barnaby Joyce appeared at protests against the NSW laws. Morrison declined to get involved, despite his “conservative" views on abortion.

In the 2017 postal survey on marriage equality, only five of the Coalition's 76 federal seats saw majorities vote “no". The law subsequently passed with the support of most Coalition MPs.

In a new article in Religion, State and Society, I examine why Australian Christian conservatives are losing policy battles even when they win elections. Compared to the United States, Australia does not have a strong link between Christianity and nationalism. I show that, if anything, the concept of Australia as a “Christian nation" has declined over the past decade. This makes it harder for religious traditionalism to piggyback on the electoral success of exclusionary nationalism.

The rise and fall of the Christian right

Religious adherence is declining in Australia, but this doesn't necessarily mean the end of religious influence in politics.

In her book Nations Under God, Anna Grzymala-Busse shows religious groups can continue to shape policy even in countries where people are averse to their involvement in politics. They can do this when they are seen as being “above politics". Religious figures are powerful when they appear to be giving non-partisan guidance to political figures, legitimised by a strong relationship between church and nation.

Australia's history has not created the kind of fusion between Christianity and nationalism that we see in places like Poland or the United States. But during the prime ministership of John Howard, politicians increasingly blended Christianity into a conservative vision of the Australian nation. This in turn created a favourable environment for religious influence.
Report Advertisement

In a 2014 article, Marion Maddox described the success of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) in Canberra. Howard brought the ACL to prominence by treating it as a “legitimate peak body" for Christianity.

The ACL's political access continued under Labor prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. At a 2007 ACL conference, Rudd and Howard both spoke, with Rudd describing how his Christian beliefs gave him a unifying vision for the nation.

Gillard, raised Baptist but a self-described atheist, held private meetings on anti-discrimination laws with ACL leader Jim Wallace. In a 2011 interview, Gillard described herself as a “cultural traditionalist" who believed it was important for people to understand the Bible because “the Bible has formed such an important part of our culture". As prime minister, Gillard opposed same-sex marriage.

Maddox warned that Australians had failed to recognise the “extremist" right-wing nature of the ACL. It successfully presented itself as “middle of the road" politically, theologically and culturally. In reality, it represented a small, ultraconservative slice of mostly neo-Pentecostal Christianity.

Even at the peak of the Christian right's power, political scientists noted its electoral and policy limitations. Abbott's 2013 election victory didn't help it. His ascendancy hardened “culture war" divisions, limiting the influence of Christian conservatives to the Coalition side of politics. Labor stopped courting conservative Christian votes, despite having conservative Christian voters.

The Coalition could form electoral majorities, but was itself divided on the big “moral" issues where conservatives are in the minority.
Report Advertisement

Read more: Same-sex marriage results crush the idea that Australian voters crave conservatism

From 'Christian nation' to 'religious freedom'

Critics of religious influence see ominous signs in the Morrison government's push for a religious freedom bill. They warn such legislation will carve out spaces for religious groups to discriminate. But the shift to a religious freedom agenda also marks a retreat of religious power in Australian life.

As Carol Johnson and Marion Maddox point out, Australia's biggest churches used to oppose efforts to expand religious freedom. They did so from a position of majority dominance, worried that efforts to protect minorities could lead to stricter separation of church and state.

In 2008, the Human Rights Commission conducted the Freedom of Religion and Belief in Australia Inquiry. An analysis found 40% of public submissions included the “assertion that Australia is a Christian nation". That assertion is much rarer today.

Even large churches are now conscious of being in a national minority on issues like marriage and sexuality. In 2017 the Turnbull government announced a Religious Freedom Review in response to conservative worries about the implications of changing marriage laws. In my analysis of the 15,500 public submissions to the review, I found just four assertions that Australia is a Christian nation or country.


Former prime minister Tony Abbott has referred to Australian society as 'relentlessly secular'. Joel Carrett/AAP

The term “Christian nation" was used 101 unique times across print media (in reference to Australia) from the beginning of 2016 to the end of 2020. It appears to be in decline as a term. It appeared 35 times in 2016, 34 times in 2017 (the year of the same-sex marriage referendum), 16 times in 2018, 7 times in 2019 and 8 times in 2020. Furthermore, nearly half the times it was mentioned, it was by someone refuting the claim that Australia is a Christian nation.

When Australians do refer to their country as “Christian", they are usually talking about heritage, rituals, holidays and census numbers. These may involve implied racial boundaries.

But Australians generally lack the classic ingredients of true religious nationalism: a sense of being “chosen" by God or of a sacred covenant between God and the nation.

Read more: How religion rises – and falls – in modern Australia

Many of Australia's devoutly Christian politicians don't like calling Australia a Christian nation. Indeed, Abbott once described Australia as “relentlessly secular". I can find no record of Morrison publicly calling Australia a Christian nation or country. The last prime minister to do so was Malcolm Turnbull, who described Australia as a “majority Christian nation" sharing a biblical heritage with Israel.

The debate around religious freedom reflects a new concept of religious traditionalists as minorities requiring protection. It also reframes religious alliances in terms of multiculturalism and diversity.

Conservative religious actors will fight to protect their existing privileges and will try to carve out new ones. But they are no longer in a position to bring Australian society into line with their beliefs.

David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

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

 

Opinion: Animal cruelty on display at the Olympics

There were strange scenes during the show jumping portion of the women's modern pentathlon. Many horses refused jumps and threw off their riders — not a good look for equestrian, says DW's Andreas Sten-Ziemons.

    

Falls were a regular feature of the Olympic women's modern pentathlon

Bucking horses urged on with a riding crop although they clearly don't feel like jumping over obstacles or even entering the course. Howling riders who have completely lost their nerve.

Numerous falls by riders that just about walk away without serious injuries.

Sweating animals with wide eyes who, even after several throw-offs, have to ride on until the finish line is finally reached and the agony is over.

No one needs to see scenes like these. The show jumping portion of the modern pentathlon on Friday was anything but good advertising for equestrian. What occurred in Tokyo's Baji Koen Equestrian Park was far from normal show jumping and should instead be described as animal cruelty.

No show jumper would force his or her animal over obstacles if it clearly did not want to or had already refused several obstacles. Even at major events, it is common for riders to prefer to end the round and drop out of the competition rather than continue to force their horses. The welfare of the animals takes precedence over sporting success..

Debatable set of rules

DW's Andreas Sten-Ziemons

The problem with Modern Pentathlon lies in the rules and structures. Athletes are often not the best riders because they come from other sports such as swimming, and learn to ride late. They do not often train in the saddle, and the pentathletes do not compete with their own sport horses, but are provided an animal drawn by lot.

At the Olympic Games, the horses are certainly not bad, but at smaller competitions, the situation is often quite different because no horse owner wants to lend good horses to mediocre riders. The risk of injury to the animals is too great for that.

It is not for nothing that there has been discussion for some time about replacing riding with, for example, mountain biking or another discipline. After Friday's women's competition at these Olympics, that discussion should be taken more seriously than before.

In Tokyo, there were 18 horses at the start that were to take to the course several times with changing female riders. For just a few minutes, they were able to get used to each other on the warm-up arena before it was go-time.

Conversely, equestrian specialists like world champion Simone Blum or Olympic champion Ludger Beerbaum, sit on their horses every day and usually work with their animals for years before an Olympic-standard performance is possible. Trust, and more importantly, harmony between horse and rider, are basic requirements for successful show jumping.

National trainer complains about unfairness

An incident during Friday's women's mondern pentathlon was anything but harmonious. 

Saint Boy, the horse with which German Annika Schleu had to enter the course, had already refused several times and clearly did not want to jump again. Saint Boy bucked, sweating and obviously scared. The loud crying and howling of the already completely distraught rider certainly did little to lift the mood.

Since there were no spectators in the stadium, one could also hear the loud "Go on! Go on!" and "Hit it!" shouts from the equally desperate Kim Raisner. Inconceivably, the German coach also thought it appropriate to strike the horse with her fist, an offense that saw her be sent home by the International Modern Pentathlon Union.

In an interview with ARD, Raisner subsequently found the rules "unfair" because it had not been possible to change the horse — only possible after four refusals. Saint Boy, however, had only refused three times, so it was not yet dramatic enough. This is a perfect example where a rule change would be appropriate for the good of the horses.

The veterinarian in charge also gave the green light. "So we had to take this horse," Raisner said. Had to? Really?

In any case, the ride failed, and the rider left the course crying bitterly. Saint Boy would have loved to join in the crying, albeit for other reasons, but no one asked him.

This op-ed was adapted from German.

1. Beasts of burden - Antagonism and Practical History

   libcom.org/library/beasts-burden-antagonism-practical-history

   2017-03-26 · Beasts of burden - Antagonism and Practical History An attempt to rethink the separation between animal liberationist and communist politics.

 

Tokyo 2020: Combining motherhood with the Olympic Games

Breastfeeding, childcare, financial cuts, qualification barriers — many female Olympians are fighting not only for medals but also their rights, and succeeding.

    

Allyson Felix with her daughter Camryn after the US Olympic Trials in June

Allyson Felix lies on the track for several minutes, completely exhausted after earning bronze in the women's 400 meters with a time of 49.26 seconds.

"Nobody believed I would be here today," Felix told reporters in Tokyo's Olympic Stadium an hour after the race. "Nobody believed that I would be in the final. But I am a fighter."

The medal was her 10th at the Olympics, but this one was extra special because it was the first she earned as a mother.

"It's my first bronze medal, and yet it is so much more significant than the others," she said.

Mothers have competed at the Olympics as far back as the 1900 Games in Paris — when women were allowed to compete for the first time. There are more moms than ever before here in Tokyo. This shouldn't come as a surprise because, for the first time in the history of the Olympics, there are nearly as many women competing as men.

How do female athletes handle breastfeeding children?

Many women are familiar with the either/or problem. For competitive athletes, like Canadian basketball player Kim Gaucher, it meant either foregoing the Summer Games or spending 28 days in Tokyo childless and not able to breastfeed. This is because Tokyo 2020's Organizing Committee barred family members from entering the country due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Canadian basketball player Kim Gaucher with her son

Japan relented after an emotional Instagram post from Gaucher and protests from other female athletes, but the concession didn't solve the problem for many. Ona Carbonell, a Spanish synchronized swimmer, decided with a heavy heart to leave her child at home. The baby and her husband would have had to spend 20 days in a hotel room, and she would have had to leave the team bubble to breastfeed, putting her team at risk of infection every time.

"We need to talk about issues like this," she said. British archer Naomi Folkard, who pumped 14 liters of milk in advance for her 15 days in Tokyo, has called for the same.

British archer Naomi Folkard bids farewell to her son on Instagram before Tokyo 2020

Who organizes and pays for childcare?

When it comes to childcare during the Games, women often have to organize — and pay for it themselves.

At the beginning of July, Felix announced that she had set up a $200,000 (€170,073) fund together with her sponsor and the Women's Sports Foundation to assist with childcare costs. Nine women are currently benefiting from the program, including Aliphine Tuliamuk, a Kenyan-born marathoner competing for the US.

Each beneficiary receives $10,000 to cover childcare costs while they work — that is, while they train and compete.

Marathoner Aliphine Tuliamuk with her baby Zoe on Instagram

Why do sponsors cut back during pregnancy and maternity leave?

"Getting pregnant is the kiss of death for a female athlete," American 800-meter runner Phoebe Wright, who was sponsored by Nike from 2010-2016, famously said in 2019. "There's no way I would tell Nike if I were pregnant."

Pregnancy and maternity leave have often automatically led to a drastic cut in sponsorship money. That's very tough for female athletes, whose income depend on sponsorships often connected to Olympic participation.

800-meter runner Alysia Montano ran two races while pregnant to keep her sponsorship

Last year, Felix ended her sponsorship agreement with Nike because the apparel brand wanted to cut her salary by 70% for not competing during her pregnancy and shortly after giving birth. She made the discrimination case public despite a confidentiality clause. This prompted Nike to change its maternity policy.

"You can't change things with silence," the sprint star said at the time.

Allyson Felix's Instagram post responding to Nike changing its maternity policy

Why are sports federations so inflexible regarding qualification criteria?

Participation in competitions, which are important for Olympic qualification, is a major, sometimes unscalable barrier for female athletes. For Canadian boxer Mandy Bujold, her placements at three specific competitions were critical for qualifying for Tokyo, but she was unable to compete due to her pregnancy.

Bujold took her case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) It ruled that other qualifying options must be found for pregnant women or athletes in puerperium, the period between childbirth and the point when the uterus returns to its normal size.

More and more female athletes are fighting back against this kind of discrimination, making it public, especially via social media — and are successful in doing so. This alone makes them role models, regardless of whether or not they win medals at the Olympic Games.

After the difficult and complicated birth of her daughter almost two and a half years ago and the many struggles alongside her running career, Felix is visibly proud to stand on the podium here in Tokyo with the bronze medal: "Normally, I can't lose and I'm very sad. But today, I am very happy."

This article was adapted from German.