Wednesday, September 15, 2021

 

Where we belong: Inside the reckoning for queer rights in Namibia

Meet some of the activists fighting to live and love in Namibia.

From left to right: Daniel Digashu, Johann Potgieter, Anita Seiler-Lilles and Anette Seiler, with Daniel and Johann’s son Lucas in front. All photographs by Chris de Beer-Procter.

This year, a growing rumble of LGBTQ rights activism in Namibia has escalated into an impressive array of legal actions. In 2021 alone, there have been at least ten cases brought to the country’s courts by same-sex couples seeking marriage equality, trans activists and victims of homophobic violence, and queer families fighting for their rights to live together. This year too, the cabinet considered abolishing Namibia’s “sodomy” law, a seldom enforced colonial-era provision that criminalises sex between men.

These developments could be monumental for a country in which state-sanctioned homophobia has continued since its hard-won independence in 1990. Despite the liberation movement turned ruling party SWAPO promising equality for all, Namibia’s recent political history is littered with homophobic comments by prominent politicians and LGBTQ Namibians do not enjoy full legal rights. They are not protected from discrimination, they do not have the right to marry, and their marriages in other countries are not recognised. Some popular responses to recent legal cases also highlight the extent to which homophobia is still common in much of society.

It is this status quo that the Namibians are challenging in the courts and through other interventions. Here are some of those activists, sharing their experiences of fighting for queer rights in their own words.


“When we opened the case, we had no idea it was so much bigger than us.”

South African Daniel Digashu (left) and his Namibian husband Johann Potgieter (right) are suing the government to have their marriage, convened in South Africa, recognised by the state in Namibia. After years of waiting, their landmark case was heard on 19 May 2021. They await the judgement. As told by Daniel:

“We decided to move to Johann’s homeland so that we could spend time with his family, we wanted our kid to know his side of the family, his grandparents. When we initially spoke to officials at the Ministry of Home Affairs, we were told not to open pandora’s box by applying for permanent residence because our marriage is not recognised. Instead, we applied for my work permit so that I could at least run the company I own with Johann.

When the work permit was rejected, we were so frustrated because we went to them, we put our cards on the table. We were transparent. When our appeal was also rejected, we didn’t really have a choice but to sue. We had uprooted our lives, our home, our son, our dogs. Our kid was already in school. We didn’t have a choice. Whether they believe it or not, we are a family unit. I was not just going to go back to RSA because they rejected my visa.

When we opened the case, we had no idea that it was so much bigger than just us. Personally, my two boys are just such rocks. I couldn’t have stayed this long had it not been for them. That keeps me going, that and knowing how many more people are fighting for exactly what we’re fighting for.”


“We….are normal people who fall in love with people from our own sex. That is the only difference”

Anette Seiler (left), who is Namibian, and Anita Seiler-Lilles (right), who is German, planned to relocate and retire in Annette’s homeland. Although she fulfils all criteria in the Immigration Act, the Ministry of Home Affairs and Immigration rejected Anita’s application for permanent residence because it does not recognise their German same-sex marriage. As told by Anette:

“There are honestly so many more interesting activities we imagined pursuing in our retirement, rather than being in court fighting the Ministry of Home Affairs and Immigration. On the one hand, we feel that we are in the right. But, on the other hand, we fear that the judges might decide against us. It’s not a sure win. For example, when we have spoken to government employees about our case, they openly trampled on our dignity. It’s incredibly distressing. We have a lot to lose.

We are not only fighting for Anita’s right to live in Namibia. Should we lose, we must both leave Namibia. I am a Namibian, who then would have to live in exile just because I love a woman.

Every time we get an invoice from our lawyer, we are shocked. This case is so expensive, we hope we have enough money to fight until the end. This money is our life savings. We planned on saving it for our retirement and for our travels, not for legal fees.

We, the gays and lesbians living in Namibia, are normal people who fall in love with people from our own sex. That is the only difference to heterosexuals. In every other sense we are like all other people. We laugh, we cry, we work and eat and sleep. Sometimes we are sad, sometimes we are happy. We are creative and interested in many things. Most of the time our sexuality is not even in the forefront of our minds.

In the coat of arms of Namibia, it says ‘Unity. Liberty. Justice’. But, as long as there is no liberty for gays and lesbians to be who they are, as long as there is no justice for us because of our sexuality, there will be no unity.”


“It’s hard to have your existence marginalised, to be told that you don’t belong.”

Omar van Reenen is a co-founder of Namibia Equal Rights Movement and a civil rights activist.

“What I do is inspired by my grandfather. He built the first hotel for coloured [people] in Namibia, during apartheid. It was a place of activism, community, a safe space. I grew up with that story and I felt like the universe sent me here to fight for social justice in the same way that my grandfather did.

Like racial justice was the civil rights issue of my parent’s generation, LGBTQ rights is the civil rights issue of our time. And it’s disheartening to see that the government doesn’t take this issue seriously.

It’s hard to see the government misusing my constitution to invalidate my human dignity. It’s hard to have your existence marginalised, to be told that you don’t belong. It’s hard to be called sick, demonic, satanic. It’s hard that you can’t walk up to a business and say ‘listen, I’ve got a bright future ahead of me, please hire me’ knowing that if they find out who you are, they might ostracise you. It’s hard not to be able to walk into a healthcare centre without fearing discrimination. It’s hard knowing that I can’t marry the person that I love in my country because there’s no recognition of my love.

It’s hard to talk about my personal stuff because I always try to put other people first. But I will say that it does take a mental toll because you don’t only have to stand up and fight against an oppressive regime, there’s a lot of internalised homophobia in our communities. It’s exhausting going to bed at night, fighting this fight but it’s a good exhaustion. It’s good to feel tired fighting for social justice, because fighting for what’s right, is always worth it. I wake up the next day and I think ‘new day, new fight’.”


“I always imagined activists to be angry people with posters”

Mercedez von Cloete is a media personality and human rights advocate who is suing the Ministry of Safety and Security for transphobic violence she suffered at the hands of police in 2017The trial hearing concluded on 16 May 2021. She is awaiting the verdict.

“A few years ago, I had a very traumatic experience with the Namibian Police, where I was unlawfully detained and brutally assaulted, repeatedly. This was not the first time that something like this had happened to me, but I promised myself that I could not allow it to persist. And so, for the last four and a half years I’ve been trying to get justice and hold the police accountable.

I always imagined activists to be angry people with posters, shouting and protesting on the streets. As someone who is in no way confrontational, it didn’t look anything like me. I’ve since learned that leaving injustices unchecked is an injustice in and of itself. That’s what made me realise that activists are really just people who no longer accept the things they ‘cannot change’ but instead seek to change the things they cannot accept.

Just like how we need the intelligence and courage to look past complexion and see the community to eliminate racism, I feel we need to look past gender and genitalia or who and how we love to live in a just, accepting and equal society.

I now consider myself an advocate for change, for all the trans and gender diverse people who don’t have the agency or support to ensure their rights are upheld. Or who are denied certain fundamental services, rights, protections and freedoms because of who they are. For those who experience continual harassment and police brutality, something which has remained unaddressed for far too long.

Personally, the emotional, psychological and physiological (dis)stress cannot be quantified. I’m still healing and just hoping that in November when the final judgement is made, that justice will prevail.”


“It’s no longer just about my own rights, it’s about our rights.”

Pascale du Toit-Henke (left) and her South African wife Jennifer du Toit-Henke (right) are suing the Namibian government for their constitutional right to live and work in Namibia, Pascale’s homeland. As told by Jennifer.

“I would say I’m an unlikely activist. I’d never considered myself to be someone on the forefront and pushing back on social issues. While I have always believed in righteousness, being an activist has never been central to my identity. Putting a legal challenge to the state and potentially launching ourselves into the spotlight on a very controversial issue…it’s very daunting.

Pascale and I didn’t even have the luxury to ready ourselves for this. We were pretty much forced to because the Ministry of Home Affairs wanted to kick me out of the country knowing that I wouldn’t be able to get back in. Back to my wife and our home.

It’s hard coming from a country like South Africa where we have wonderful LGBTQ rights. It was a shock for me. I didn’t realise that I’d never really felt discriminated against before, this felt like the first time I’ve really experienced homophobia. It’s not a good feeling. It makes you sad, angry, resentful. It chips away at you.

Mostly it’s the unspoken discrimination, the laws that have been put down by the Ministry of Home Affairs which has caused us an invisible distress. It’s made me feel very unwelcomed and embattled. It’s hard to shake off. The state-sanctioned homophobia has caused me to lose a lot. I’ve lost my right to work, to travel home or to continue my business. It’s so stressful and surreal.

Going to court feels a little bit confrontational and so, so unnecessary. And yet, so necessary. And so, it’s felt like I’ve been guided down this path to becoming an activist, or maybe initially forced down it. It’s no longer just about my own rights, it’s about our rights.”


“What propels me to be at the forefront is that I know myself.”

Ndiilokelwa Nthengwe is an intersectional gender justice activist involved in advocacy and communications for several organisations including Equal Namibia. Their first book, The Chronicles of a Non-Binary Black Lesbian Namibian…in Love, is now available for pre-order.

“I’m trying to document and narrate what a nonbinary lesbian experience in Namibia could be. I’m doing this for myself, too. If I had the book I’ve written when I was in high school, I wonder how would it have shaped my own reflections of my identity. It would have confirmed for me all the thoughts I had and the internal conflict I felt. At that time, I didn’t have the language to articulate who I am: what I am for myself, to myself. And if media like it could exist, then it’s not just for me. It’s for the other many people who struggle to articulate exactly what they feel, to help them navigate how to exist.

This work documenting and archiving the struggle, like we in these social movements are doing by live-tweeting from the court rooms and doing Instagram live and radio interviews, is so important. We must do it for ourselves, we need to centre the voices of marginalised groups. It’s important because someone is always watching. Out of the 10,000 that are homophobic, maybe 300 appreciate the content you put out and they inform themselves on issues that affect their identities.

Being at the forefront is a privilege but it’s also humbling. It’s not about leading people, it’s about giving them the authority to become a part of the movement. It’s about showing up. What propels me to be at the forefront is that I know myself. I know my leadership qualities. When you say you’re going to do something, you must do it. You must be accountable to yourself. No one is going to do that for you just because you’re a lesbian or you’re gay. You must show that you’re not here to play. It means doing the internal work for yourself first.”


“Nobody is voiceless. We all have voices. We just have to find ways to use those voices.”

Deyoncé Cleopatra Chaniqua Naris is a Namibian-born trans woman, blogger and podcast host. She is the executive director of the Transgender, Intersex and Androgynous Movement of Namibia (TIAMON) and the chairperson of the Southern African Trans Forum. She is affectionately known as “Mam D” to her “little Queers of the world”.

“Oh my goodness, Namibia is a beautiful country. It’s a warm country, the people are amazing. As queer people, we actually live relatively comfortable lives depending on where you find yourself on the socio-economic spectrum. I always say to comrades, in comparison to other countries in Africa, I believe as queer Namibians we are a lot better off and we should value that. But we also know that there is systematic exclusion and discrimination for our community here. Some of it is backed by individuals with personal prejudices that work at governmental institutions or who are custodians of our constitution. Therefore, our access to services like healthcare, judicial or just economic justice is generally a problem.

I’ve been an activist since I was a child, a mere little bambino. I can remember as early as my school days, I think I became the bully of the bullies, which is never a good thing. But, I’ve always stood up for the underdog, for what people would define as persons who are voiceless, but I mean, nobody is voiceless. We all have voices. We just have to find ways to use those voices.

But as a transwoman and activist in Namibia, my face is constantly out there. I find myself constantly navigating my own safety. Once your face is blasted all over, you never really feel safe because the level of transphobia and the abuse that you encounter which increases just a little. Its emotionally daunting living like this. It’s overwhelming to constantly prepare myself to leave the house because for the verbal abuse that I face, for the amount of taxis that will drive past me because I’m a transgender woman. They think it’s taboo or that it’s illegal for me to be me, they leave me by the roadside. It is hard but you manage to find ways to exist.”


 

Nigeria: The infamous 1996 Pfizer trial driving anti-vax feelings today

For those affected by the devastating drug trial, vaccine hesitancy is not only driven by conspiracy theories or mistrust but lived experience.

Illustration by Antoine Bouraly

A version of this piece, edited by Mercy Abang, was originally published by Unbias The News. 

“It’s strange that I still remember everything, even the colour of the nurse’s uniform. There was a white nurse who was in a brown skirt and green blouse, who directed the Nigerian nurse to give him three injections at a time and he did exactly that while my son was on my shoulders,” says Hajiya Maryam*, speaking in Hausa. 

“Immediately after receiving the drugs, he became unconscious for hours. On waking up, I noticed that he couldn’t hear anything again. I knew that it was Pfizer who gave him the drugs.”

Maryam’s son, Zakari, was six at the time and ill with fever and headache. She had thought he had meningitis. She took him to Asibitin Zana, a clinic in Kano, where he was treated with drugs. The drugs, part of a Pfizer trial, left Zakari with a hearing and speech impediment. Maryam insists no one told her that Pfizer was testing out a new drug. 

The aftermath of Pfizer’s drug trial in 1996 is linked to the current COVID-19 vaccination boycott in communities within Kano State. Here, vaccine hesitancy is not only driven by conspiracy theories or mistrust in science but lived experience. 

Drug trials during an outbreak

In 1996, a severe meningitis outbreak spread through Nigeria, causing inflammation of the brain and spinal cord linings. By March of that year, the infection had spread to 12 states, leading to over 100,000 cases with a fatality rate of 10.7%. It was the most severe epidemic of the illness ever recorded in Nigeria. 

The outbreak, which lasted over three months, required the combined efforts of a National Task Force, the World Health Organisation (WHO), UNICEF, UN Development Programme (UNDP), Médecins Sans Frontières, the International Red Cross and several other NGOs to bring the epidemic under control, but not without scars left behind for families in Kano State. 

In addition to the international task force, the US-based pharmaceutical company Pfizer was in Kano at the time with an antibiotic drug called Trovan, expected to potentially treat meningitis, but not yet approved for that use or for treatment of children by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The company administered a drug trial of Trovan and a second drug, Ceftriaxone, then a standard treatment for meningitis, to some 200 children.

Pfizer has maintained that they obtained prior verbal consent from all parents for the experiment, but those like Maryam and 29-year-old Bala Bello tell a different story. Bello was four-years-old during the meningitis outbreak. 

“I was ill and taken to the Infectious Diseases Hospital (IDH), popularly known as ‘Asibitin Zana’,” Bello recounted. “I was given some drugs, which no one explained to [my mum] what the said drugs were meant for.”

Shortly after the drugs had been administered, he developed an unexpected side effect.

“We didn’t even leave the hospital before a reaction manifested. Soon after, I developed paralysis in my legs,” Bello says while struggling to maintain a stable sitting position. “Soon after I was paralysed…my mother got to know that it was Pfizer who had given her the drugs from their experiment.”

Of the trial participants, 11 died and dozens of others were left with debilitating injuries: blindness, paralysis, deafness, and neurological deficits, which the company maintains are the result of meningitis, not the drugs they administered. (Pfizer did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.) 

In 1998, the license for Trovan for use by adults was withdrawn from the European Medical Agency because of concerns over serious medical problems and multiple deaths. It was withdrawn from the US market in 1999 for the same reasons, though at the time Pfizer said trials had revealed no side effects. It appears results from the trial in Kano State were never published.

In 2007, the Nigerian federal government and Kano State government filed criminal and civil suits against Pfizer and eight other defendants, asking for $7 billion in damages. The suit charged that the company had tested an unapproved and experimental drug on children with neither informed consent from parents nor approval from the Nigerian government. Pfizer countered that such approval wasn’t necessary. In 2001, an investigation by the Washington Post had uncovered that a document Pfizer claimed to prove ethical approval by Nigerian authorities for the trial appeared to be falsified and back-dated. 

In 2009, Pfizer and Kano State officials, along with representatives of the children’s families, agreed a confidential out-of-court settlement for $75 million. This conclusion led to compensation for some of the families affected, but Pfizer never admitted to wrongdoing and maintains to this day that the trial was proper and life-saving.

A legacy of scepticism

Many years later, the memory of the Trovan drug trial remains. The COVID-19 vaccine recalls doubts over the ethics of big pharmaceutical companies.

“I won’t advise, I won’t allow and I won’t tolerate seeing my son, myself or any of my relatives to receive the COVID-19 vaccine,” Maryam maintains. She vows to discourage anyone she knows from taking the vaccine and inform them about the 1996 meningitis outbreak. “I will educate them on that. My son is now living in agony despite the so-called compensation…He is neither in school nor into business. He is living a miserable life.”

Maryam is not alone in her doubts. From Congo to Malawi and South Sudan, doses of the expired vaccines have been destroyed, a development that raises concerns for vaccine equity and the effectiveness of a global vaccination effort that requires mass participation to be effective.

Dr Samaila Suleiman, a lecturer of History at the Bayero University Kano, argues that scepticism over the COVID-19 vaccine can be traced to historical cynicism against the motives of Western powers in Africa. 

“It is important to also note that the COVID-19 vaccine scepticism is not peculiar to the uninformed members of the community. There are highly placed members of the elite and political class who have refused the COVID-19 vaccine, citing a Western conspiracy to decimate the African population,” he says. 

Fighting hesitancy

“As public health experts, we must do more than offer the vaccine,” says  Dr Faisal Shuaib, head of the Nigerian National Primary Healthcare Development Agency. “We have to also put in the hard work of providing the correct information about the safety, effectiveness of vaccines and clear the doubts and misconceptions that exist.”  

These doubts may be difficult to disprove when pharmaceutical companies remain unrepentant for previous actions, settling disputes with out-of-court payments cloaked in secrecy. However, countries can take measures to hold them to account. In Uganda, the high court recently set out guidelines for obtaining informed consent from the subjects of human clinical drug trials in the case of Mukoda v International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. 

For Bello and Maryam, intense scepticism about the COVID-19 vaccine and the pharmaceutical industry in general remain. “I won’t take COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer or a different pharmaceutical company,” Bello reiterates. 

As health advocates struggle to fight disinformation and conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 vaccines, it is important to remember that in some countries distrust stems not only from ignorance but experience. 

 

Unbias The News is a feminist, all-women crossborder newsroom by Hostwriter, seeking to actively fight against the perpetuation of racist, sexist, or ableist stereotypes. 

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M 
Elizabeth Holmes: Has the Theranos scandal changed Silicon Valley?

By James Clayton
BBC
North America technology reporter



For years Elizabeth Holmes was the darling of Silicon Valley, a woman that could do no wrong.


The start-up she founded, Theranos, attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in investments.


Yet the company she had built was based on fantasy science.



The technology Theranos was producing - supposedly testing for hundreds of diseases with a pin prick of blood - seemed incredible. And it was.


Millions of dollars were squandered and some who used the company's tests, including a cancer patient, say they were misdiagnosed.


Theranos founder 'lied and cheated', trial hears


Now, years after Theranos collapsed, Ms Holmes is on trial in California for fraud (she has pleaded not guilty).



For an outsider to Silicon Valley the story sounds nonsensical. How were so many people taken in?


Yet in Silicon Valley, many believe that Theranos - far from being an aberration - speaks of systemic problems with start-up culture.

Faking it until you make it


In Silicon Valley, hyping up your product - over-promising - isn't unusual, and Ms Holmes was clearly very good at it.


A Stanford University drop-out, she was, by all accounts articulate, confident and good at presenting a vision - a mission as she described it - to revolutionise diagnostics.

Sceptical experts told her that her idea was just that - an idea - and wouldn't work.

But she projected an unfaltering confidence that the technology would change the world.


PROFILE - Who is Elizabeth Holmes?


"It's baked in to the culture" said Margaret O'Mara, author of The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America.


"If you are a young start-up in development - with a barely existent product - a certain amount of swagger and hustle is expected and encouraged" she said.


Particularly at an early stage, when a start-up is in its infancy, investors are often looking at people and ideas rather than substantive technology anyway. General wisdom holds that the technology will come with the right concept - and the right people to make it work.


Ms Holmes was brilliant at selling that dream, exercising a very Silicon Valley practice: 'fake it until you make it'.


Her problem was she couldn't make it work. Her lawyers have argued that Ms Holmes was merely a businesswoman who failed, but was not a fraudster.


The problem in Silicon Valley is that the line between fraud and merely playing into the faking it culture is very thin.

"Theranos was an early warning of a cultural shift in Silicon Valley that has allowed promoters and scoundrels to prosper," said tech venture capitalist Roger McNamee, who is critical of big tech and did not invest in Theranos.


He believes that a culture of secrets and lies in Silicon Valley, a culture that allowed Theranos' tech to go un-analysed, is "absolutely endemic".


Ambition can be good. Promising a brighter future, and then trying to realise that vision, brought about computers and smartphones.


But for investors, trying to separate the charlatans from the revolutionaries is a constantly evolving challenge.


Last month, Silicon Valley phone app start-up HeadSpin's CEO and founder, Manish Lachwani, was arrested for allegedly defrauding investors. For people putting money on the line, there are great fortunes to be made and lost.

Silicon Valley

Keeping the 'secret sauce' secret


In Silicon Valley intellectual property is closely guarded. The 'coke' recipe, the secret sauce, is often the thing that gives a company value, and new technology firms are particularly sensitive to having their ideas copied or stolen.


Secrecy is important for these companies to succeed - but that culture of secrecy can also be used as a smoke screen, particularly when even employees and investors don't understand or aren't given access to the technology itself.


This is what happened at Theranos. Journalists, investors, politicians, you name it, were all told the science was there. Yet when questions were asked they were told the technology was so secret that it could not be fully explained, analysed or tested.


Walgreens, a major client of Theranos, became exasperated with the lack of information given by the company about how the system worked.


There are many Silicon Valley companies I've reported on that will not fully explain how their tech actually works. They claim to have "proprietary" systems that cannot yet be revealed or peer-reviewed.


The system is based on trust, yet it is fundamentally at odds with a culture of "faking it" and creates the perfect environment for Thernanos-type scandals, where claims that aren't true are left unchallenged.

Borrowing from the CIA playbook



A system that places so much emphasis on secrecy needs lawyers, and lots of them. Companies don't want their employees running off with ideas. Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are endemic in the start-up world - and by no means confined to tech.


But Silicon Valley's culture of secrecy makes it notably difficult for whistle-blowers.


After the company's collapse, former Theranos employees spoke of intense pressure to withdraw negative public remarks or stay quiet altogether. The company hired aggressive, expensive and very active lawyers to protect Theranos's reputation.


This is not uncommon in Silicon Valley, says Cori Crider from Foxglove, a group that helps whistle-blowers come forward.


"I spent more than a decade working in national security and I very often feel like Silicon Valley types play from the playbook of the CIA on this stuff", she said.


"They have managed to scare people and make them think they don't have the right to raise legitimate issues."


If founders and chief executives aren't being honest, employees need to feel comfortable raising the alarm. All too often they don't.

Rupert Murdoch invested in Theranos

A wild west of money and ambition

Amid the hype, it can be easy to forget that many investors looked at Theranos and passed - especially those with a knowledge of healthcare.


Among those who were notable investors were people and groups without expertise in health, such as the media mogul Rupert Murdoch.


For these investors with capital, often their decision to put in a stake assumes that smaller early stage funders have done their homework on the tech.


"They're kind of taking third party validation at its word," said Ms O'Mara.


Once again, it's a system based on trust - later investors trusting that earlier ones know what they're doing. The problem here is, with so much money sloshing around, that is not a given.


In the end, Theranos got caught. As a health technology company doing real life diagnostics, results and regulators would eventually prove it real or fake.


But with many Silicon Valley companies selling the supposedly new and the cutting edge in fields far less tightly regulated, scrutiny is more lax.


Today, the 'fake it until you make it' culture is still alive and well - as is the repressive culture of secrecy and the aggressive use of NDAs for employees. It's a model that has its advantages - and helps churn out extremely valuable and sometimes innovative companies.


But it also means the ingredients are still in place for another Theranos scandal.

THE HORROR OF GENOCIDE BY SPECIES CHAUVINISTS
Faroe Islands: Anger over killing of 1,400 dolphins in one day

By Joshua Nevett
BBC NeWA
The hunting of whales is a traditional practice in the Faroe Islands (file image)

The practice of dolphin hunting in the Faroe Islands has come under scrutiny after more than 1,400 of the mammals were killed in what was believed to be a record catch.

The pod of white-sided dolphins was driven into the largest fjord in the North Atlantic territory on Sunday.

Boats herded them into shallow waters at Skalabotnur beach in Eysturoy, where they were killed with knives.

The carcases were pulled ashore and distributed to locals for consumption.

Warning: This article contains graphic details and images some may find distressing.

Footage of the hunt shows dolphins thrashing around in waters turned red with blood as hundreds of people watch on from the beach.

Known as the grind (or Grindadrap in Faroese), the hunting of sea mammals - primarily whales - is a tradition that has been practised for hundreds of years on the remote Faroe Islands.


The Faroese government says about 600 pilot whales are caught every year on average. White-sided dolphins are caught in lower numbers, such as 35 in 2020 and 10 in 2019.


Supporters say whaling is a sustainable way of gathering food from nature and an important part of their cultural identity. Animal rights activists have long disagreed, deeming the slaughter cruel and unnecessary.

The BBC's Stacey Dooley investigates whale hunting

Sunday's hunt was no different, as international conservation groups rounded on the hunters to condemn the killing.

But the scale of the killing at Skalabotnur beach has shocked many locals and even drawn criticism from groups involved in the practice.

Bjarni Mikkelsen, a marine biologist from the Faroe Islands, put the reported death toll into perspective.

He said records showed that this was the largest number of dolphins ever killed on one day in the Faroe Islands, a autonomous territory of Denmark.

He said the previous record was 1,200 in 1940. The next-largest catches were 900 in 1879, 856 in 1873, and 854 in 1938, Mr Mikkelsen said.






The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.View original tweet on Twitter


In an interview with the BBC, the chairman of the Faroese Whalers Association, Olavur Sjurdarberg, acknowledged that killing was excessive.

Why were that many dolphins killed, then?

'People are in shock'

IT WAS AN OPPS BUT HEY DID THEY STOP THE KILLING, OF COURSE NOT

"It was a big mistake," said Mr Sjurdarberg, who did not participate in the hunt. "When the pod was found, they estimated it to be only 200 dolphins."

Only when the killing process started did they find out the true size of the pod, he said.


"Somebody should have known better," he said. "Most people are in shock about what happened."



Even so, according to Mr Sjurdarberg, the catch was approved by the local authorities and no laws were broken.

Such hunts are regulated in the Faroe Islands. They are non-commercial and are organised on a community level, often spontaneously when someone spots a pod of the mammals.

To take part, hunters must have an official training certificate that qualifies them to kill the animals.

'Legal but not popular'


Killing white-sided dolphins is "legal but it's not popular", said Sjurdur Skaale, a Danish MP for the Faroe Islands.

He visited Skalabotnur beach to speak to locals on Monday. "People were furious," he said.

WE SLAUGHTERED THEM HUMANELY FATHERS, MOTHERS, CHILDREN

Still, he defended the hunt, which he said was "humane" if done in the right way.


That involves a specially designed lance, which is used to cut the spinal cord of the whale or dolphin before the neck is cut.

Using this method, it should take "less than a second to kill a whale", Mr Skaale said.


Whale hunts - such as the one pictured here in Torshavn in 2019 - are organised by communities

"From an animal welfare point of view, it's a good way of killing meat - far better than keeping cows and pigs imprisoned," he said.

Campaign group Sea Shepherd has disputed this, arguing that "the killing of the dolphins and pilot whales is rarely as quick as Faroese government" makes out.


"Grindadrap hunts can turn into drawn-out, often disorganised massacres," the group says.

"The pilot whales and dolphins can be killed over long periods in front of their relatives while beached on sand, rocks or just struggling in shallow water."


Braced for 'a big backlash'


Surveys suggest that most people are opposed to the mass slaughter of dolphins in the Faroe Islands.

On Sunday, the national reaction was "one of bewilderment and shock because of the extraordinarily big number", said Trondur Olsen, a journalist for Faroese public broadcaster Kringvarp Foroya.

"We did a quick poll yesterday asking whether we should continue to kill these dolphins. Just over 50% said no, and just over 30% said yes," he said.


In contrast, he said, a separate poll suggested that 80% said they wanted to continue with the killing of pilot whales.

The polls provide a snapshot of public opinion towards the killing of sea mammals.

Animal rights activists have long criticised whaling in the Faroe Islands (file image)

Criticism of the Faroese hunt has ebbed and flowed over the years. The hunt is brought to wider attention from time to time, as it was by the popular Seaspiracy documentary on Netflix earlier this year.

This time, though, locals say the reaction - especially within the whaling community - has been unusually damning.

"There's been a lot of international attention. My suspicion is that people are bracing themselves for a big backlash," Olsen said.

"This is a good time for campaigners to put even more pressure on. It will be different this time because the numbers are very big."

 

Then-CIA director Gina Haspel said the US was 'on the way to a right-wing coup' after Trump lost the election: book

Haspel, Trump
Trump and Gina Haspel. SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images
  • Trump's CIA director believed the US was headed toward a "right-wing coup" after he lost the election.

  • That's according to Bob Woodward and Robert Costa's upcoming book, "Peril."

  • Then-CIA director Gina Haspel was one of several top officials who were afraid of what Trump might do.

  • See more stories on Insider's business page.

The former CIA director expressed concern that the US was headed toward a right-wing coup after then President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, according to a new book obtained by The Washington Post.

The book, "Peril," by The Post's Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, is set to be released next week and documents the chaotic final months of Trump's presidency and the beginning of Joe Biden's term.

The Post reported that the top officials in the US military and intelligence apparatus were afraid of what Trump might do in his quest to overturn the election results and the effect that his lies about the election could have on his agitated base.

Two of those officials were Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gina Haspel, the CIA director. In one conversation, the book said, Haspel told Milley, "We are on the way to a right-wing coup." It's unclear when during the transition period the conversation took place, but it came as Trump and his loyalists were pushing the lie that the election had been "rigged" and stolen from him.

Trump's bogus conspiracy theories grew so frenzied that Milley started thinking the president was suffering a mental decline after losing the election, the book said, according to The Post.

The president's actions also sparked concerns overseas about how far he would go to regain control of the White House. Those concerns persuaded Milley to call his Chinese counterpart on two occasions - once before the election and once after the Capitol riot - to reportedly assure him that Trump would not start a war with the country.

In another phone call on January 8, two days after the failed insurrection, Milley told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that he agreed with her when she called Trump "crazy," the book said.

This story is developing. Check back for updates.


The top US general 'was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline' after the 2020 election, book says
Then-President Donald Trump speaks as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Army Gen. Mark Milley looks on, on October 7, 2019. 
Mark Wilson/Getty Images


A top US general was "certain" Trump's mental state declined after the 2020 election, a new book says.

Gen. Mark Milley thought Trump was "all but manic" in the days following the Capitol riot.

The reporting comes in a new book by legendary journalist Bob Woodward and Washington Post reporter Robert Costa.


Top US Gen. Mark Milley thought then-President Donald Trump's mental state deteriorated after the 2020 election, according to a new book.

Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election," authors Bob Woodward and Robert Costa of the Washington Post write in their forthcoming book, "Peril," set for release on September 21.

Peril By Bob Woodward


The Post and CNN obtained early copies of the book and published excerpts of Milley's reported reaction to Trump's behavior in the wake of the presidential election that Trump falsely claimed was stolen from him.

In the days after the January 6 riot, Milley believed that Trump was "all but manic, screaming at officials and constructing his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies" and feared that the president would "go rogue," per the book.


At the time, Trump had refused to accept his defeat in the 2020 presidential election and amplified debunked claims that the race was rife with voter fraud. On January 6, pro-Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an effort to stop the certification of President Joe Biden's election win.

Worried over what Trump might do, Milley warned military officials to follow procedures to the letter in carrying out any orders, including involving him in the process. Military officers gave Milley their word, in what he considered to be an "oath," the book says.

"You never know what a president's trigger point is," Milley had told his senior staff at the time, according to the book.

These reports suggest that Milley may have over-stepped his role as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a role that advises the president and defense secretary but is not part of the chain of command for operational decisions like the launching of nuclear weapons.

Milley was so concerned that Trump might start a war with China, he privately called his Chinese counterpart twice to assure him that the US would not strike, per the book.

Milley had also grown anxious that Trump would take military action against Iran and warned him not to, according to another forthcoming book by the New Yorker's Susan Glasser and New York Times' Peter Baker, slated to come out next year.

Since leaving office, Trump has attacked Milley and called for his resignation in June after the top general supported the military studying critical race theory. Republicans have clamored for a ban on teaching the subject — a major talking point in the so-called culture wars. Milley defended his stance, arguing that the military should learn about the history of racism in the US.

THE END OF PRIVATIZATION IN A WHIMPER
UK
Half a million homes to be given new energy supplier after two more go bust


Utility Point and People’s Energy are the latest of seven companies to fail in the past year amid record energy market prices


People’s Energy, based in London, supplied gas and electricity to about 350,000 homes. Photograph: True Images/Alamy


Jillian Ambrose
Tue 14 Sep 2021 

About half a million households will be moved to a new energy supplier after Utility Point and People’s Energy became the latest energy companies to go bust amid record energy market prices.

The latest casualties bring the total number of failed energy suppliers to seven in the past year, including five within the past five weeks, as the market price for gas and electricity has reached new all-time highs.

Bournemouth-based Utility Point supplied gas and electricity to about 220,000 homes, while People’s Energy, based in London, supplied gas and electricity to about 350,000 homes and about 1,000 non-domestic customers. In total, about 2 million people have been affected by the seven supplier failures.

The regulator, Ofgem, will appoint new suppliers to take on the households and companies left stranded by the latest market failures through a “safety-net” process which protects customers outstanding credit balances.

Neil Lawrence, Ofgem’s retail director, said it “can be unsettling” to hear that an energy supplier has gone out of business but customers do not need to worry.

“Ofgem will choose a new supplier for you and while we are doing this our advice is to wait until we appoint a new supplier and do not switch in the meantime. You can rely on your energy supply as normal,” he said.

The latest collapses come less than a week after PfP Energy and MoneyPlus Energy ceased trading, leaving about 100,000 customers without a supplier. Ofgem has since appointed British Gas to take over the customer accounts from both failed companies.

The first energy supplier to go bust as market prices reached historic highs was Hub Energy. It called in administrators in mid-August, and the regulator appointed E.ON Next, a division of E.ON UK, to take on Hub’s 17,000 customers within days.

The record market prices over recent weeks are expected to lead to hikes in household energy bills until 2022, rising levels of fuel poverty and the collapse of many small energy suppliers.
Rare snow surprises residents in west Cameroon
CGTN
14-Sep-2021


Rare snow in the tropical country of Cameroon near the equator, has surprised many residents who took to social media to share their excitement.

The snowfall disrupted traffic and destroyed crops on some plantations in Bana, a sub-prefecture in the West Region of the country, according to reports.

Bana's mayor Jean Baptiste Sanga attributed the snowfall to climate change.

Cameroon, located in West Africa, lies between 1 and 13 degrees north latitude. Its natural landscape consists of beaches, mountains, rain forests and savannas. It has an annual average temperature of about 24-28 degrees Celsius.

(Cover image via video screenshot)

Washington Is Shedding Crocodile Tears for Afghan Women

War hawks constantly cite women’s liberation in support of the US occupation of Afghanistan. That’s transparent hypocrisy: during the Cold War, the US supported patriarchal fundamentalists against a party dedicated to advancing the cause of Afghan women.


Women fighters from the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) demonstrate in Kabul during the Soviet troop withdrawal in February 1989. (Patrick Robert / Sygma via Getty Images)

BY GILBERT ACHCAR
JACOBIN
09.14.2021

The entire US political class is shedding warm tears for Afghan women’s fate under renewed Taliban rule. These tears are consistent with a twenty-year-old discourse that presented the desire to liberate Afghan women from Taliban yoke as a key motivation of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, second only to the immediate goal of extirpating al-Qaeda in response to the 9/11 attacks.

This pretense is very hypocritical indeed. The insincerity is especially transparent in light of the Cold War, when the US supported patriarchal fundamentalists against a party dedicated to advancing the cause of Afghan women.

The claim of acting on behalf of Afghan women could have been used likewise, if not more convincingly, to justify the ten-year-long Soviet occupation of their poor country. After all, under the Soviet-sponsored government of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), crucial measures were taken in trying to emancipate Afghan women from traditional patriarchal shackles. A 2003 report by the NATO advisory International Crisis Group (ICG) detailed these measures enforced by the PDPA regime and the harsh regression in women’s condition that prevailed after its fall. As summarized ten years later in a 2013 report by the same ICG:

Ousting Daud in a military coup, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) promised women equal rights, compulsory education and protection against forced, arranged and child marriage. Successive PDPA regimes also encouraged female employment. By the time the Taliban took over in the mid-1990s, 70 per cent of teachers, about half of all civil servants and 40 per cent of doctors in Afghanistan were women.

To be sure, the ICG did criticize the PDPA regime and the Soviet occupation for their brutality and the heavy-handed imposition of measures such as ending segregation in schools, but there’s no question that the PDPA years saw a major effort toward improving the condition of Afghan women in the areas (especially urban) under regime control. Meanwhile, the Islamic opposition to the PDPA regime, dominated by hardline fundamentalists, was heavily anti-women: the difference between the mujahidin of the 1980s and early 1990s and the Taliban is one of shades on the same end of the color spectrum — not a qualitative difference. As the 2013 ICG report noted: “The mujahidin used their control over camps in Pakistan to impose their idiosyncratic interpretation of the role of women on the refugee population, supported by General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime, which shared their puritanical version of Islam.”

A demonstrator in support of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) in Kabul during the Soviet troop withdrawal, 1989. (Patrick Robert / Sygma via Getty Images)

In addition to the Pakistani military dictatorship, the mujahidin were supported by the oldest and closest US Muslim ally, the Saudi kingdom, likewise known for its appalling treatment of women. And yet it was this arc of forces that Washington chose to support in their fight against the PDPA regime and its Soviet backers.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981, made a lot of noise with the interview he gave to a French magazine in 1998, two years after the Taliban seized power in Kabul. After boasting that his administration had given the USSR “its Vietnam war” that “brought about the breakup of the Soviet empire,” he was asked if he regretted “having supported Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists.” Brzezinski cynically replied: “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”

Brzezinski at least did not attempt to excuse the Taliban — unlike Zalmay Khalilzad, who, after having served in the State and Defense departments in the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations, became US ambassador to Iraq and then to Afghanistan under George W. Bush. He was later put in charge of US negotiation with the Taliban by Donald Trump and played that role until the completion of the US withdrawal last August. In 1996, Khalizad argued the following in the Washington Post: “Based on recent conversations with Afghans, including the various Taliban factions, and Pakistanis, I am confident that they would welcome an American reengagement. The Taliban does not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran — it is closer to the Saudi model.”

Feminists will appreciate Khalilzad’s high concern for women’s rights, which is but a sample of Washington’s long-standing double standard in bashing Iran’s Islamic fundamentalism while excusing the Saudis’ — even though, compared to the latter, the former looks like a beacon of democracy and women’s emancipation. What prevented the reengagement that Khalilzad had recommended from taking place wasn’t the fate of Afghan women in the least. It was solely the increase in Al-Qaeda’s attacks on US targets, which led Bill Clinton to order a missile strike on Osama bin Laden’s bases in Afghanistan in 1997. The rest of the story is well known: 9/11 and the twenty-year US involvement in that war-torn country, ending in the catastrophic outcome that the whole world has witnessed in August.

Whether the condition of women was overall more advanced under the US-sponsored Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2004–2021) than it was under the PDPA regime is debatable. Unlike the latter, however, the US-sponsored regime had to accommodate the patriarchal tradition embodied by Washington’s old Afghan allies, the mujahidin who had fought the PDPA and the Soviet occupation and maintained their dominance over the new regime (see the sections on women’s and girls’ rights in the successive annual Human Rights Watch reports on Afghanistan).

Moreover, women in rural areas, where the vast majority of Afghans live, have borne the brunt of the US-led war and endured huge suffering as a result of it. The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) has denounced this situation in strong terms. And despite pleas for the inclusion of women in the peace process that Washington conducted with the Taliban under Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden, women’s participation remained marginal. The claim that the US obtained promises of moderation from the Taliban has already proven to be a joke — which would have been risible had the situation not been so tragic.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Gilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University of London. His most recent books are Marxism, Orientalism, Cosmopolitanism (2013), The People Want: A Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013), and Morbid Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).
Is the world ready for the continued decline of the West?
By Song Luzheng
Published: Sep 12, 2021 
OPINION / VIEWPOINT

G7 Photo: VCG
What happened in Afghanistan last month has twice shocked the world - the Taliban's rapid victory and takeover of Afghanistan, and the US' chaotic withdrawal from the country.

Both events have proved the failure of the US. The country could no longer afford the war in Afghanistan and had no choice but make peace with the Taliban. This has kicked off unimaginable dominoes. The US' final withdrawal would have been an even greater calamity had the Taliban not kept their word.

The decline of the US-led alliance is not a new topic. Following the 2008 global financial crisis, Brexit, Donald Trump's election as president, and Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan, the West has shown one thing in common: It is ready to abdicate responsibility. What has happened in Afghanistan reinforces it.

The UK has turned its back on a troubled EU to fend for itself. Trump has turned its back on the world by quitting international groups to shore up his "America First," or even "US only." US President Joe Biden has categorically abandoned Afghanistan by insisting on the withdrawal.

Even amid the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, the West scrambled for anti-epidemic materials around the world in the early stage by making use of their financial advantages. Later they rushed to stockpile vaccines. Some of them were found to have illegally intercepted masks that were planned to be transported to third countries. Canada ordered vaccines for more than twice its population. Now the West has begun to promote a third dose of vaccine despite the protests of the WHO. However, only around 3 percent of Africa's population is fully vaccinated.

During its decline, the US-led alliance has worried the world by abdicating its responsibility. More importantly, it has also been unwilling to share power with the vast number of developing countries. This is utter selfishness. More than that, it has even clamped down on high-performing emerging countries.

China's Huawei is a typical example of this. The US government has cracked down on Huawei baselessly. This seriously violates the principles of market and rule of law broadly advocated by the West.

The US' crackdown on Huawei is an assault on China's tech industry. Its attempt to lure and divide developing countries while playing geopolitical game with China has destabilized the world order and also endangered world peace. For example, the world has seen the US actively involved in the South China Sea. It has courted China's neighboring countries, but everyone knows that US' move is only to serve its own interests. It will abandon the region if needed, just as it did in Afghanistan.

The current West-dominated international order is unsustainable with the West's continuing move of shifting responsibility. It is refusing to share power with developing countries.

For that, the world needs to make some preparations.

The first thing for the developing countries is to give up the illusion of the West. They need to develop and improve the ability to solve problems on their own. Third world countries have rich natural resources, young populations and abundant labor forces. It is entirely possible for them to create a new economic miracle as long as they find a development path suitable for their own conditions.

China faced enormous difficulties at the beginning of reform and opening-up - backward economy, huge population and a planned economy. But it became the world's second largest economy in just four decades through peaceful development. If China can do it, other countries can do it as well.

Second, the developing countries need to join hands to cope with the challenges brought by the decline of the West. They need to urge the West to stop shifting responsibility, refusing to share power, and destroying the unity of developing countries. Only in this way can the world effectively transform the old international order into one that is as peaceful and secure as possible.

The author is a research fellow at the China Institute, Fudan University.

 opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

The Decline of the West - LibertyGalaxy.com

libertygalaxy.com/videos/DeclineOfTheWestSpengler.pdf · PDF file

the decline of the west form and actuality by oswald spengler authorized translation with notes by charles francis atkinson mcmxxvii: alfred • a • knopf: new york …