129-year journey nears end as France returns Benin treasures

By THOMAS ADAMSON

In this Friday, Nov. 23, 2018 file photo a visitor looks at wooden royal statues of the Dahomey kingdom, dated 19th century, at Quai Branly museum in Paris, France. In a decision with potential ramifications across European museums, France is displaying 26 looted colonial-era artifacts for one last time before returning them home to Benin. (AP Photo/Michel Euler, File)


PARIS (AP) — In a decision with potential ramifications across European museums, France is displaying 26 looted colonial-era artifacts for one last time before returning them home to Benin.

The wooden anthropomorphic statues, royal thrones and sacred altars were pilfered by the French army in the 19th century from Western Africa.

President Emmanuel Macron suggested that France now needed to right the wrongs of the past, making a landmark speech in 2017 in which he said he can no longer accept “that a large part of many African countries’ cultural heritage lies in France.” It laid down a roadmap for the controversial return of the royal treasures taken during the era of empire and colony. The French will have a final glimpse of the objects in the Musée du quai Branly–Jacques Chirac from 26-31 October.

French Culture Minister Roselyne Bachelot tried to assuage jitters among European museums, emphasizing that this initiative “will not create a legal precedent.”

A French law was passed last year to allow the restitution of the statues to the Republic of Benin, as well as a storied sword to the Army Museum in Senegal.

But she said that the French government’s law was intentionally specific in applying solely to the 27 artifacts. “(It) does not establish any general right to restitution” and “in no way calls into question” the right of French museums to hold on to their heritage.

Yet critics of such moves — including London’s British Museum that is in a decades-long tug-of-war with the Greek government over a restitution of the Elgin Marbles — argue that it will open the floodgates to emptying Western museums of their collections. Many are made up of objects acquired, or stolen, during colonial times. French museums alone hold at least 90,000 artifacts from sub-Saharan Africa.

The story of the “Abomey Treasures” is as dramatic as their sculpted forms. In November 1892, Colonel Alfred Dodds led a pilfering French expeditionary force into the Kingdom of Danhomè located in the south of present-day Benin. The colonizing troops broke into the Abomey Palace, home of King Behanzin, seizing as they did many royal objects including the 26 artifacts that Dodds donated to the Musée d’Ethnographie du Trocadéro in Paris in the 1890s. Since 2003, the objects have been housed at the Musée du quai Branly–Jacques Chirac.

One hundred and twenty nine years later, their far-flung journey abroad will finally end.

Benin’s Culture Minister Jean-Michel Abimbola called the return of the works, a “historic milestone,” and the beginning of further cooperation between the two countries, during a news conference last week. The country is founding a museum in Abomey to house the treasures that will be partly funded by the French government. The French Development Agency will give some 35 million euros toward the “Museum of the Saga of the Amazonians and the Danhome Kings” under a pledge signed this year.

The official transfer of the 26 pieces is expected to be signed in Paris on Nov. 9 in the presence of Macron and the art is expected to be in Benin a few days later, Abimbola said.

While locals say the decision is overdue, what’s important is that the art will be returned. “It was a vacuum created among Benin’s historical treasures, which is gradually being reconstituted,” said Fortune Sossa, President of the African Cultural Journalists Network.

___

Virgile Ahissou in Cotonou, Benin, and Sylvie Corbet in Paris contributed to this report

UN: Greenhouse gas concentrations hit a new record in 2020

 In this Oct. 15, 2021 file photo, smoke rises from the Feyzin Total refinery chimneys, outside Lyon, central France. The World Meteorological Organization says greenhouse gas concentrations hit a new record high last year and continued to increase at a faster clip than the average rate in the last decade, despite a temporary blip downward amid coronavirus-linked lockdowns. The U.N. weather agency, releasing its flagship annual report on heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere on Monday Oct. 25, 2021, said concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are all above levels in the pre-industrial era pegged to before 1750, when human activities “started disrupting Earth’s natural equilibrium.”

(AP Photo/Laurent Cipriani, file)


GENEVA (AP) — The World Meteorological Organization reported Monday that greenhouse gas concentrations hit a new record high last year and increased at a faster rate than the annual average for the last decade despite a temporary reduction during pandemic-related lockdowns.

In its annual report on heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, the U.N. weather agency also pointed to signs of a worrying new development: Parts of the Amazon rainforest have gone from being a carbon “sink” that sucks carbon dioxide from the air to a source of CO2 due to deforestation and reduced humidity in the region, it said.

The findings come as WMO, in its annual report on heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, said concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide were all above levels in the pre-industrial era before 1750, when human activities “started disrupting Earth’s natural equilibrium.”

The report’s release came days before the start of a U.N. climate change conference in Glasgow, Scotland. Many environmental activists, policymakers and scientists say the Oct. 31-Nov. 12 event, known as COP26 for short, marks an important and even crucial opportunity for concrete commitments to the targets set out in the 2015 Paris climate accord.

“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin contains a stark, scientific message for climate change negotiators at COP26,” World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said of his agency’s report. “At the current rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, we will see a temperature increase by the end of this century far in excess of the Paris agreement targets of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.”

“We are way off track,” Taalas said.

The report draws on information collected by a network that monitors the amount of greenhouse gases that remain in the atmosphere after some quantities are absorbed by oceans and the biosphere.

“One of the striking messages from our report is that the Amazonian region, which used to be a sink of carbon, has become a source of carbon dioxide,” Taalas said. “And that’s because of deforestation. It’s because of changes of the global local climate, especially. We have less humidity and less rainfall.”

Oksana Tarasova, chief of WMO’s atmospheric and environment research division, said the results showing the Amazon going from sink to source were a first, but he noted they were from a specific southeastern portion of the Amazon, not the entire rainforest.

The global average of carbon dioxide concentrations hit a new high of 413.2 parts per million last year, according to the WMO report. The 2020 increase was higher than the annual average over the last decade despite a 5.6% drop in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels due to COVID-19 restrictions, WMO said.

Taalas said a level above 400 parts per million – which was breached in 2015 -- “has major negative repercussions for our daily lives and well-being, for the state of our planet and for the future of our children and grandchildren.”

Human-incurred carbon dioxide emissions, which result mostly from burning fossil fuels like oil and gas or from cement production, amount to about two-thirds of the warming effect on the climate. WMO said overall, an economic retreat last year because of the pandemic “did not have any discernible impact on the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases and their growth rates, although there was a temporary decline in new emissions.”

___

Follow AP’s climate change coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/climate

Study: Paris Climate Agreement targets require unprecedented fossil fuel cuts


A new study found that Asian countries will need to reduce their use of coal by an unprecedented rate to meet the Paris Climate Agreement's targets. Coal trucks wait their turn to deliver their payloads to the Lu'an Coal to Oil Project in Changzhi, China in 2018.

 Photo by Stephen Shaver/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 22 (UPI) -- Meeting the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement will require a drop in the use of coal and gas at a rate previously unseen by any large country, a new study has found.

The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which includes 196 countries, sets a target of limiting global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) this century. Meeting that goal means a net-zero reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The study, published in the journal One Earth, examined historical records of previous rapid declines in the use of fossil fuels in 105 countries between 1960 and 2018. Researchers found 147 occasions where the use of coal, oil or natural gas declined by more than 5% over a decade.

The most pronounced decline was when oil was replaced by coal, gas, or nuclear power in the 1970s and the 1980s. Countries made the switch in response to the global oil crisis, discovering domestic fuel reserves and the introduction of nuclear technology.

Rapid declines in the use of fossil fuels have required competing technologies, motivating security threats and effective government institutions to enact changes Jessica Jewell, an associate professor in energy transitions at Chalmers University in Sweden and corresponding author of the study, said in a statement.

"We were surprised to find that the use of some fossil fuels, particularly oil, actually declined quite rapidly in the 1970s and the 1980s in Western Europe and other industrialized countries like Japan," Jewell said.

"This is not the time period that is typically associated with energy transitions, but we came to believe that some important lessons can be drawn from there."

The study also looked at the pledges about 30 countries made to phase out coal power as part of the Powering Past Coal Alliance. These pledges will not phase out coal faster than historic declines in fossil fuel use, researchers concluded. Jewell added, "In other words, they plan for largely business as usual."

The study pointed to a particular challenge surrounding the use of coal, particularly in Asia, which has a rapidly growing electricity demand. About half of scenarios where the Paris Climate Agreement's target is met would require an unprecedented or rarely seen transition.

"Fast transitions to low-carbon power sources are needed, yet it is unclear whether historical precedents for such transitions exist," the study said.

WW3.0
NATO's flirtation with adding 2 more members runs the risk of starting a war the US can't afford to fight

Sascha Glaeser, Defense Priorities
Sun, 24 October 2021

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at a NATO Defense Ministers meeting in Brussels, October 21, 2021. REUTERS/Pascal Rossignol

While in Europe this month, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin made clear that Ukraine and Georgia may still join NATO.

Ukraine and Georgia have much in common with other NATO members - including a rivalry with their neighbor, Russia.

But offering them membership is a dangerous and counterproductive policy that doesn't serve US national interests.

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is visiting Europe this week having said Ukraine and Georgia have an "open door to NATO" and that "no third country has a veto over NATO's membership decisions."

Because both countries have been on the receiving end of Russian aggression, it is natural to feel sympathy for Ukraine and Georgia - but offering them NATO membership is an extremely dangerous and counterproductive policy that does not serve the US national interest.

Rather than bolster the security of the American people, as one would expect US defense policy to do, expanding NATO increases the risk of the United States being drawn into a war with Russia. Moving forward in the process of offering NATO membership to Ukraine or Georgia risks igniting a major NATO-Russia conflict.

Should an attack follow Ukraine or Georgia's formal acceptance into the alliance, NATO's Article 5 would legally require the United States to militarily intervene. Such a scenario could quickly escalate to the nuclear level, making it imperative that the conceivably devastating consequences of NATO enlargement are honestly assessed.

Unfortunately, Austin's comments are just the latest example of US policy makers failing to accept the geopolitical reality of eastern Europe.

Russian troops at a checkpoint in a village near the region of South Ossetia, roughly 62 miles from Tbilisi, Georgia, August 5, 2008 

Irakli Gedenidze/Reuters

The 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit was a significant turning point for European security. There, it was formally announced that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members of the alliance.

In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters "We will do all we can to prevent Ukraine's and Georgia's accession into NATO and to avoid an inevitable serious exacerbation of our relations with both the alliance and our neighbors."

Other top officials went further, with one Russian general saying, "Russia will take unambiguous action toward ensuring its interests along its borders. These will not only be military steps, but also steps of a different character." In other words, Moscow made it clear that either country's entry into the alliance would cross a red line and Russia would be prepared to use all facets of power, including military intervention, to enforce that red line.

Russia made good on its promise. In 2008 it fought a five-day war with Georgia and established de facto control of the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and provided military support to pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Moscow effectively created buffer zones in both countries that separate Russia's borders from Western-backed governments. It has also cunningly ensured that both conflicts remain frozen, using the threat of further escalation as a potential hedge to prevent NATO accession.

Ukrainian soldiers conduct a drill with tanks in the Donetsk region of Ukraine, April 24, 2021.

 Armed Forces of Ukraine/Handout/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Americans need only look at our own history to understand why Russia has acted in this manner. The United States established the Monroe Doctrine in the early 1800s, claiming that any intervention by European powers in the western hemisphere would be viewed as an act hostile to the United States.

By the end of the 19th century, the United States had successfully driven out all other great powers and established itself as the regional hegemon of the New World. When the Soviet Union challenged the US position in 1962 by deploying military assets 90 miles off the coast of Florida, the world was brought to the brink of nuclear Armageddon.

If the United States does not tolerate such behavior, why does the Biden administration believe that expanding NATO - and therefore the presence of US troops - on Russia's borders will be viewed by Moscow as benign?

Providing hope to Kyiv and Tbilisi that NATO will come to its defense also creates a moral hazard problem. Rather than making the difficult political accommodations necessary to end their respective conflicts, Ukrainian and Georgian leaders are incentivized to shift their security burden on the United States by taking a hardline stance against Moscow.

This escalates US-Russia tensions and is not particularly kind to average Ukrainians and Georgians, who would likely bear the brunt of any renewed conflict.

The reality is that Moscow views the prevention of Ukraine and Georgia from joining NATO as a core strategic interest. As such, Russia will go to great lengths to achieve this objective. The Biden administration should conclude that it is not worth risking World War III over two countries with little geopolitical significance.

As the United States shifts its focus to the larger strategic threat of China, US policymakers would be wise to seek détente with Russia. Such an effort would start by taking Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership off the table.

Sascha Glaeser is a research associate at Defense Priorities. He focuses on US grand strategy, international security, and transatlantic relations. He holds a master of international public affairs and a bachelor's in international studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Third batch of US military equipment is delivered to Ukraine

Defense News October 2021 Global Security army industry

POSTED ON SATURDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2021

According to a Tweet published by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense on October 22, 2021, the third final batch of additional international security assistance from the Government of the United States of America has arrived in Ukraine, including ammunition, anti-tank and high-precision weapons, medical equipment, etc.

Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link

Ukraine has taken delivery of the third batch of U.S. military equipment. 

(Picture source Twitter Ukraine MoD)

According to a U.S. Congress report, the United States is a leading contributor of foreign assistance to Ukraine, including over $300 million a year since FY2015 in nonmilitary, non-humanitarian assistance. The United States also provides substantial military assistance to Ukraine, including via a newly established Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative that provides “appropriate security assistance and intelligence support” to help Ukraine defend against aggression and support its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The United States has been a leading contributor of foreign assistance to Ukraine. Non-military, non-humanitarian assistance in FY2014 amounted to around $80 million and rose to around $315 million in FY2015. In FY2016, non-military, non-humanitarian assistance totaled $575 million, around half of which ($290 million) was the subsidy cost of a $1 billion sovereign loan guarantee, the third the U.S. government had extended to Ukraine since 2014.

The United States has also provided military assistance to Ukraine. In July 2016, the White House stated that the United States had committed over $600 million in total security (mostly military) assistance since the Ukraine conflict began in 2014 (this included funds for FY2014 and FY2015).

According to the SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) arms trade database since 2015 United States has delivered 210 FGM-148 Javelin Anti-tank missiles, 50 HMMWV Up-Armored APV (Armored Protected Vehicle) M-1114 and M-1151 versions, 13 TPQ-36 Fire-finder Artillery locating radar, 5 Island Patrol craft Ukrainian designation Slavyansk, and 150 FGM-148 Javelin Anti-tank missiles.


Putin: visit of U.S. Secretary of Defense to Kyiv will open NATO’s doors for Ukraine

Friday, October 22, 2021 

Russian President Vladimir Putin is confident that the visit of United States secretary of defense Lloyd Austin to Kyiv is intended to open doors for Ukraine to join NATO.

According to the Russian president, the formal membership of Ukraine in the Alliance may not take place, but "the military development of Ukraine is already underway." Putin expressed concern that this poses a real threat to Russia.

"Here comes the defense minister (of the United States), who in fact opens a door for Ukraine to join NATO. In fact, his statement should and can be interpreted in this way. No one says, "No"... This is not a guarantee of security for Russia. These are just empty conversations on a given topic and, of course, we are concerned about it," Putin said during a speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club.

Putin added that he knows the constitutional provision of Ukraine about military bases, but it does not apply to training centers. He believes that "under the disguise of training centers, one can bring anything."

The Russian president said that “if tomorrow missiles appear near Kharkiv, this will be a problem for Russia since it is not Russia that goes there with its missiles, they [NATO] are deploying them under our noses."

On October 19, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who was in Kyiv on a working visit

I THOUGHT IT WAS

Is Australia becoming a surveillance state?

With new powers granted to law enforcement agencies in Australia, we examine what this could mean for digital rights in the country

by: Zach Marzouk

ITPRO.UK
11 Oct 2021


At the end of August, the Australian Parliament passed the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2021 granting the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) extensive new powers.

Senator Lidia Thorpe, the Australian Greens spokesperson for Justice, said the bill enables both law enforcement agencies to be “judge, jury, and executioner”, adding there’s no explanation as to why these powers are necessary. She also highlighted that allies like Canada, New Zealand, the UK and US don’t grant their own law enforcement these rights.

With this bill being brought into law with cross-party support, is Australia moving closer to being a surveillance state?

All eyes on Australia

The bill takes surveillance of Australian citizens to the next level, says Ljiljana Brankovic, a professor at the faculty of Engineering and Built Environment at the University of Newcastle. She says that Australian citizens can now have their communications listened to, data on their computers altered, added, copied, and deleted, and their social media accounts closed and their identities impersonated.

“Initially, it was alleged that this bill would only apply to terrorism, paedophile rings and drug trafficking; however, it’s applicable to all serious crimes, that is, crimes for which the maximum penalty is at least 3 years,” she explains.

Australia steps closer to cross-border data transfers with US

One of Brankovic’s concerns is that data disruption and network activity warrants can be issued by a nominated Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) member instead of a judge or magistrate.She says that where it’s impractical to prepare a sworn affidavit specifying the grounds of the warrant and how it would assist in preventing the offence, it’s possible to obtain one without it, and submit it retroactively within 72 hours. Also, if applying for a warrant isn’t practical, an emergency authorisation may be issued.

Another concern is that there are provisions for offences that “are likely to be committed”, says Brankovic. “Preventing a deadly terrorist attack is one thing but seizing data on one’s computer because they are deemed to be likely to evade tax in the future is a quite different thing; it’s up to a nominated Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) member to decide which to approve,” she says.

Brankovic underlines that warrants could also lead to a breach of privacy of a suspect’s associates who use the same computer or communicate with the suspect online.

She says it appears the cost of privacy breaches will be borne by the victims rather than the AFP or ACIC, noting that this can be quite high.

The bill had bipartisan support with dissenting voices few and far between, says Brankovic highlighting that this is not out of character for the country. She points out that Austrlalia does not have a national Bill of Rights and that it has introduced 92 counter-terrorism laws since 2001.

Through these new powers, once police want to check someone’s information, there is no way to protect their privacy other than not posting this information on the internet, says James Kang, a lecturer in computing and security at Edith Cowan University.

He says that although cyber crime can be disrupted, forcing criminals to find other ways to carry out their activities, the biggest concern in terms of security is if police data systems are compromised, giving hackers access to data harvested through the legislation. To avoid this, the police should implement hardened security measures to protect the information, he says.

UK 'mass surveillance' regime is illegal, EU court declares

Kang adds that it’s debatable if there is a need for the bill, as it gives police powers to improve public safety, but privacy can be compromised. He explains that to counteract terrorism or crimes, police will need the ability to access data quickly as the crime is now becoming more difficult to detect and prevent.

“In my personal opinion, yes it’s required. However it should be thoroughly audited and managed not to misuse the power by police,” he says.

If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself

Every increase in state surveillance has a democratic cost, and we must not underestimate the extent of that cost, according to Kieran Pender, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC). Pender says surveillance powers intrude on people’s privacy and have a chilling effect on the exercise of political rights.

Pender believes the powers in the law should have been narrowed to what is strictly necessary and subject to robust safeguards, which is why the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security unanimously recommended significant changes to the bill.

“It’s alarming that, instead of accepting the committee’s recommendations and allowing time for scrutiny of subsequent amendments, the Morrison government rushed these laws through parliament in less than 24 hours,” says Pender.

He adds that the government has consistently failed to ensure robust safeguards to minimise the adverse impact of new surveillance powers, and the bill continues this “deeply troubling trend”. Although he welcomes the safeguards for journalists and whistleblowers, which were only added after the bill was reviewed, Pender says it highlights the lack of wider entrenched safeguards for press freedom and free speech in Australia.

“By enacting wide-ranging surveillance and secrecy laws in the absence of federal human rights laws, successive governments have put the cart before the horse. Australians urgently need protections for fundamental human rights like a Charter of Human Rights,” he explains.

Building the apparatus of control

The bill brings Australia a step closer to becoming a surveillance state, says Raman Jit Singh Chima, senior international counsel and Asia Pacific policy director at Access Now. Chima believes it amplifies the government’s powers without adequate limitations, undermines encryption, and endangers human rights.

“It imperils citizens’ digital privacy and security by conferring unprecedented hacking powers on law enforcement agencies,” he says. “Any device, online network or account, including social media profiles, used by people in Australia, is now vulnerable to hacking by authorities without any meaningful limitations and safeguards.”

US and Australia arrest 'hundreds' in encrypted messaging sting

Chima doesn’t think the hacking bill should have been passed as it enables surveillance overreach, puts people’s digital privacy and security at risk, and further strengthens the government’s already problematic surveillance powers, which he says need to be restricted and not enhanced.

It’s concerning, he adds, because it’s part of a larger apparatus of laws authorising expansive surveillance that are on the rise in the country, including the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 (TOLA). Chima underlines that TOLA has previously been criticised for its adverse impact on privacy, security, and freedom of expression.

“The hacking bill, alongside TOLA, would make it unreasonably difficult to implement end-to-end encryption in Australia, which is important, not only for protecting privacy, free expression, and other human rights, but also for bulwarking the economy, preserving democracy, and ensuring national security,” he says.

Chima says the review of the bill showed lawmakers are increasingly aware of the significant, unchecked powers that Australian police and executive actors are demanding. This concern, however, has only so far manifested in efforts to make minor fixes or cuts to proposals, instead of taking on the wider review and reform of the country’s surveillance ecosystem that’s drastically required.

The only way to ensure long-term safety, says Chima, is for the public to push back against the implementation of the bill and demand TOLA be repealed, or at the very least demand amendments to implement meaningful limitations and safeguards. These include independent judicial oversight and adherence with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

“Australians have to stand up to ensure their lawmakers prioritise a comprehensive review and amendment of Australian surveillance law, including stricter controls and improved human rights protections,” says Chima.

Amnesty International to shutter Hong Kong offices, blames security law


People hold signs to support pro-democracy activists charged with violating the national security law, as they queue up at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts for a court hearing, in Hong Kong, China May 31, 2021. (File photo: Reuters)

AFP, Hong Kong
Published: 25 October ,2021

Amnesty International said Monday it would shutter its offices in Hong Kong because of the threat posed to staff by a national security law that Beijing imposed on the city.

The decision ends more than four decades of the international human rights group maintaining a presence in Hong Kong and comes as officials remold the city in mainland China’s authoritarian image.

China imposed a national security law last June in response to massive and often violent democracy protests, a move that has transformed Hong Kong’s political, cultural and legal landscape and introduced mainland-style political speech curbs.

Anjhula Mya Singh Bais, chair of Amnesty’s board, said the decision to close had been made “with a heavy heart” and was “driven by Hong Kong’s national security law”.

“(It) has made it effectively impossible for human rights organizations in Hong Kong to work freely and without fear of serious reprisals from the government,” she added.

Amnesty maintains two offices in Hong Kong.

The first is a local branch that focuses on human rights and campaigns in the city.

The second is a regional office that carries out research and advocacy work across East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

In its announcement Amnesty said its local office would close on October 31 while the regional office would move out “by the end of 2021."

NIGERIA
Decisively end Police brutality, Amnesty International tells FG

Oghenekevwe Uchechukwu
October 20, 2021

Photo of End SARS protesters taken at the Lekki Toll Gate on Tuesday 20th October, 2020 

Credit: Twitter


AMNESTY International has called on the Nigerian authorities to put words into action and decisively end Police impunity and ensure that the rights of Nigerians to peaceful protests as guaranteed by the constitution are protected.

Speaking on the occasion of the #EndSARS Memorial on Wednesday, Country Director of the organisation Osai Ojigho said an independent investigation by the organisation found that the Nigerian Army and Police killed at least 12 people on October 20, 2020 at Lekki Toll Gate and Alausa in Lagos.

“Amnesty International was able to establish that pro-government supporters instigated violence at many of the demonstrations, providing cover for the Police to use lethal force against peaceful protesters.

“The organisation also found that detained protesters were tortured and refused or denied immediate access to lawyers. In many cases, Police abuse continued in detention, in Police stations and other holding facilities, and on the way to detention, in Police vehicles,” Ojigho stated.

A year after the #EndSARS protest, members of the security forces found culpable of human rights violations are yet to be prosecuted, while judicial panels of inquiry set up to investigate abuses by officers have made little progress.

Amnesty International has urged the Nigerian government to thoroughly, independently, impartially, and transparently investigate suspected perpetrators of human rights violations in the country and bring them to justice.

“Failure to bring to justice those suspected to be responsible for the torture and killings of #EndSARS protesters on 20 October 2020 is yet another indication that Nigerian authorities lack the political will to ensure accountability for these atrocities, and end police brutality,” the organisation said.
- Advertisement -

Similarly, a Nigerian entertainer DJ Switch, who gained prominence after doing a live video of the Lekki Toll Gate shooting last October, has called out the Nigerian Minister for Information Lai Mohammed for discrediting the real-time information disseminated from the toll gate scene on the night of October 20, 2020.

Speaking at the Oslo Freedom Forum, a series of global conferences run by the New York-based non-profit Human Rights Foundation under the slogan ‘Challenging Power,’ DJ Switch stated: “Our leaders are afraid; it is as simple as that. They are afraid of a thinking, innovative and collaborative working Nigeria. They are afraid of every young Nigerian who, against all odds, have made it for themselves.”

Referencing Nigeria’s music legend Fela Anikulapo Kuti’s 1977 hit song, Zombie, where he likened the Nigerian Army to zombies, she said the song was relevant today, as it was 44 years ago.

The entertainer, who recently relocated out of the country and has remained a strong voice against Police brutality, added: “we stand up to our oppressors, starting with the Nigerian Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed.”

Despite the indefinite ban on Twitter in Nigeria, Nigerians within the country and in the diaspora, as well as other nationalities sympathetic the #EndSARS campaign which rode on the back of the global Black Lives Matter movement, have constituted a ‘netizen’ and launched a 20-day #EndSARS activism to commemorate the event of 20th October, 2020.

Various discourses are expected to be held, aimed at calling attention to the implementation of the five priority demands – the immediate release of all arrested protesters, justice for all deceased victims of police brutality, investigation and prosecution of all reported cases of police misconduct, psychological evaluation and retraining of all disbanded SARS officers by an independent body, and better salary and welfare for police officers.

Amnesty: freedom of expression and misinformation crisis

Hippocratic Post | 19th October 2021 |

 

Credit: Shutterstock

Covid-19: Global attack on freedom of expression is having a dangerous impact on public health crisis: Attacks on freedom of expression by governments, combined with a flood of misinformation across the world during the Covid-19 pandemic, have had a devastating impact on peoples’ ability to access accurate and timely information to help them cope with the burgeoning global health crisis, said Amnesty International today in a new report.

Silenced and Misinformed: Freedom of Expression in Danger During Covid-19 reveals how governments’ and authorities’ reliance on censorship and punishment throughout the crisis has reduced the quality of information reaching people. The pandemic has provided a dangerous situation where governments are using new legislation to shut down independent reporting, as well as attack people who have been directly critical or even attempted to look into their government’s response to Covid-19.

“Throughout the pandemic, governments have launched an unprecedented attack on freedom of expression, severely curtailing peoples’ rights. Communication channels have been targeted, social media has been censored, and media outlets have been closed down – having a dire impact of the public’s ability to access vital information about how to deal with Covid-19,” said Amnesty International’s senior director for research advocacy and policy, Rajat Khosla.

“In the midst of a pandemic, journalists and health professionals have been silenced and imprisoned. As a result, people have been unable to access information about Covid-19, including how to protect themselves and their communities. Approximately five million people have lost their lives to Covid-19 and lack of information will have likely been a contributory factor.”

The government of China has a long history of controlling freedom of expression. During the early days of the pandemic, health workers and professional and citizen journalists attempted to raise the alarm as early as December 2019. However, they were targeted by the government for reporting on the outbreak of what was then an unknown disease. By February 2020, 5,511 criminal investigations had been opened against individuals who published information about the outbreak for “fabricating and deliberately disseminating false and harmful information”.

In one harrowing case, citizen journalist Zhang Zhan travelled to Wuhan in February 2020 to report on the Covid-19 outbreak. She went missing in May 2020 in Wuhan. It was later revealed that she was detained by police, charged with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

Numerous other countries have put in place oppressive laws, restricting the right to freedom of expression and silencing critics under the guise or in the context of the pandemic, including Tanzania, Russia and Nicaragua.

Over the past few years, the Tanzanian government has introduced a raft of laws and used them to silence journalists, human rights defenders and members of the political opposition. Under former President Magufuli’s administration, the Tanzanian government took a denialist stance on Covid-19. From March to May 2020, authorities used laws prohibiting and criminalizing “false news” and other measures to restrict media coverage of the government’s handling of Covid-19.

While initially trying to downplay the impact of the pandemic and intimidate those raising concerns, the Nicaraguan authorities used Covid-19 to introduce the “Special Law on Cybercrimes” in October 2020. In practice, it enables authorities to punish those who criticize government policies and gives them ample discretion to repress freedom of expression.

In April 2020, Russia expanded its existing anti-“fake news” legislation and introduced criminal penalties for “public dissemination of knowingly false information” in the context of emergencies. Although the amendments have been described as part of the authorities’ response to Covid-19, these measures will remain in force beyond the pandemic.

“It’s clear Covid-19 related restrictions on freedom of expression are not just time-bound, extraordinary measures to deal with a temporary crisis. They are part of an onslaught on human rights that has been taking place globally in the last few years – and governments have found another excuse to ramp up their attack on civil society,” said Rajat Khosla.

“Restricting freedom of expression is dangerous and must not become the new normal. Governments must urgently lift such restrictions and guarantee the free flow of information to protect the public’s right to health.”

Amnesty’s report highlights the role of social media companies in facilitating the rapid spread of misinformation around Covid-19. This is because platforms are designed to amplify attention-grabbing content to engage users and have not done enough due diligence to prevent the spread of false and misleading information.

The onslaught of misinformation – whether that be through social media companies or people in a position of power seeking to spread division and confusion for their own gain – is posing a serious threat to the rights to freedom of expression and to health. It is making it increasingly difficult for individuals to have a fully informed opinion and make educated choices about their health based on the best available scientific facts. A variety of sources is key, as is the ability to challenge and debate available information.

“As we are urging governments and pharmaceutical companies to ensure vaccines are distributed and made available to everyone around the world, states and social media companies must also ensure the public has unfettered access to accurate, evidence-based and timely information. This is a crucial step to minimize vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation,” said Rajat Khosla.

“So far, 6.6 billion* doses have been administered globally, yet only 2.5% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose. With less than 75 days left until the end of the year, we’re calling on states and pharmaceutical companies to drastically change course and to do everything needed to deliver two billion vaccines to low and lower-middle income countries starting now – but they need safe, reliable information to help inform their decisions.”

Amnesty International is calling on states to stop using the pandemic as an excuse to silence independent reporting, lift all undue restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and provide credible, reliable, accessible information so the public can be fully informed about the pandemic. Censorship does not help in dealing with misinformation: free and independent media and strong civil society do.

States must overhaul the destructive business model of Big Tech – one of the root causes of the spread of mis/disinformation online. Social media companies must also stop hiding their heads in the sand and take measures to address the viral spread of misinformation, including by ensuring their business models do not endanger human rights.

Amnesty International launched a new campaign, 100 Day Countdown: 2 billion Covid-19 vaccines now! on 22 September 2021. The organization is calling on states and pharmaceutical companies to deliver 2 billion vaccines to those who need it now, to ensure that the World Health Organization’s target of vaccinating 40% of the population of low and lower-middle income countries by the end of the year is met.

* Figure correct as of 14 October 2021: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccinations – Statistics and Research – Our World in Data





Hippocratic Post

New Zealand TV report exposes Boris Johnson's shoddy trade deal

By The Jouker

THE NATIONAL, 

SCOTLANDS PAPER FOR INDEPENDENCE

Jacinda Ardern has described her deal with Boris Johnson as 'win-win' – but British farmers don't see it that way

BORIS Johnson claimed it was a “a fantastic week for Global Britain” as he signed a new trade deal with New Zealand.

The latest post-Brexit agreement cuts tariffs on exports between the UK and New Zealand, meaning dairy products and red meat will be easier to export to Britain.

But much like the Tory leader’s much vaunted deal with Australia, farmers here say they’re being well and truly ripped off.

That much was made clear in a TV report from Newshub, a current affairs programme which airs on New Zealand’s channel Three.

Despite being hailed as “hugely exciting” by Scottish Secretary Alister Jack and described as a win-win by Jacinda Ardern, farmers in the UK told Kiwi reporters that they feel like “sacrificial lambs of the free trade deal”.

“The UK’s less intensive approach to farming means they could quickly be outpriced and outstocked by New Zealand’s once tariffs are removed,” the Newshub correspondent explains.

Liz Webster, of campaign group Save British Farming, told the reporter: “It’s us surrendering to you New Zealand and giving you a great deal and we’re getting nothing out of it.”

You can watch the full report here.

READ MORE: Australian leader admits he doesn't care about impact of trade deal on Scotland

The Scottish Government, meanwhile, says it wasn’t consulted at all during the 16 months of negotiations with New Zealand.

A spokesperson said: “Any deal with New Zealand will not remotely offset the damage to our economy caused by Brexit.

"Even the UK Government's own scoping assessment published last year said a deal with New Zealand would result in zero increase in GDP and that the agriculture and semi-processed food sectors would be likely to lose out.

"Aside from the economic arguments of seeking new deals with markets thousands of miles away while putting up barriers to trade with our European neighbours, the climate change implications of long-distance trade must also be considered."

If this was a good week for “Global Britain”, we’d hate to see a bad one.

UK

The rule of Raab: new justice secretary seeks “mechanism” to overrule ECHR

Dominic Raab's plan to defy the European Court of Human Rights, and overrule the rule of law, will delight dictators worldwide

byAndrew Adonis

 25 October 2021

“First virtual PMQs and Ministerial statement on Coronavirus 22/04/2020” by UK Parliament is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

A Sunday paper reported that Dominic Raab, reincarnated as injustice secretary after failing so badly as foreign secretary that even Boris Johnson was embarrassed, has a new project. He is apparently devising a “mechanism” to allow the government to “correct” court judgments that ministers believe are “incorrect”.

Rule of Raab rather than rule of law

The word for this mechanism goes back to Stalin, Hitler and Charles I. It is called ‘tyranny’.

Raab appears particularly to have in his sights the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). He has long campaigned to end its jurisdiction in the UK, so it rings true that he would be working on a ‘mechanism’ to bring this about. The rule of Raab rather than the rule of law.

It is important not to confuse the Strasbourg-based ECHR with the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice (ECJ), as historically illiterate and sometimes mendacious Brexiters usually do.

The ECJ is the supreme court of the European Union, from which we have Brexited.

The ECHR is an entirely separate institution, which exists to enforce the European Convention on human rights, which pre-dates the European Communities (which became the EU) by almost a decade. It was instigated in the late 1940s, in the wake of the Nuremberg trials, to guard against a recurrence of fascism and the Holocaust. It now includes Russia and Turkey as well as every European nation bar despotic Belarus.

UK has never succumbed to fascism

As the largest European state not to succumb to 20th-century fascism or communism, the UK – very much including thoughtful Conservatives, such as Churchill’s home secretary David Maxwell-Fyfe – has been the ECHR’s essential inspiration from the outset. It is a statement of fundamental liberal values, such as freedom from torture and arbitrary arrest or conviction. In more recent decades this has included banning the death penalty.

The ECHR requires national courts and parliaments to bring their law into line with its judgments where it finds egregious breaches of human rights. For the UK (at least outside Northern Ireland) this has historically concerned second order issues – except, of course, to those affected – like the abolition of corporal punishment in schools and youth institutions.

For Raab and co, defying the ECHR has the same nationalist ‘take back control’ populism as Brexit. When asked why, he claims that our soldiers may be in danger, although we already subscribe to the International Criminal Court in the Hague (which is another separate jurisdiction). Or, heaven forbid, that we might have to give the vote to certain categories of prisoners because of ECHR rulings.

Upholding human rights as ‘global Britain’

Johnson has drawn back from formally exiting the ECHR, since such a sinister retreat from multilateralism would undermine any pretence of ‘Global Britain’. The UK would be the only European state to deny fundamental human rights, a bit of a problem in facing up to Russia, where the ECHR’s main activity at present is to try to get Alexei Navalny released from jail.

As a member of the Council of Europe – the parliamentary assembly which sits alongside the ECHR and debates reports on human rights abuses four times a year – I can attest to the hawk-like way that Putin’s henchmen cite every other country in alleged breach of the ECHR, from Orbán’s Hungary to our very own Johnson over his attempt to suspend our parliament in 2019 when it wouldn’t do his bidding on Brexit.

Justification of a dictator

So instead, we have Raab and his ‘mechanism’ to overrule the ECHR, and maybe our Supreme Court too. Putin and Erdoğan will be extremely keen to copy this ‘mechanism’ when it is devised, since most of the ECHR’s pending cases relate to Russia and Turkey. Indeed, this may be its greatest danger. For while I suspect that our parliament won’t ultimately discard the ECHR, if Raab can make his ‘mechanism’ work, it will soon be cited hereafter by every dictator, including Xi of China, to justify their latest obscenities.

And it’s not just one rogue minister here. The whole Brexit mafia believe in the rule of Raab. David Frost now says the Northern Ireland protocol of the Brexit treaty he negotiated is “provisional” and declares it must be replaced by the right of Britain to do what it likes in respect of trade in Ireland or he will withdraw from the protocol unilaterally. Priti Patel wants to allow Border Force officials to avoid prosecution if they turn boats back to France and migrants drown. As for the prime minister, the rule of law to him is basically what he can get away with, personally and constitutionally.

So beware the rule of Raab. It follows on directly from Brexit and it is coming our way fast.

Andrew Adonis

Andrew Adonis is a Labour peer, and formerly transport minister, education minister and head of No 10 policy unit under Tony Blair.

  

 

Ghana’s bishops back abusive anti-LGBT bill

by Savitri Hensman | Oct 25, 2021 | Commentary

VARIOUS RELIGIOUS LEADERS have thrown their weight behind a draft bill targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT+) people in Ghana and anyone supportive of them.

Backers includes the Anglican Church in Ghana’s House of Bishops . Yet the bill violates not only human rights but also what many would see as basic Christian principles.

Gay sex is already banned, under a colonial-era law. But the ‘Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values 2021’ bill seeks harsher sentences, of up to five years, for a wide range of people with a “sexual or gender identity that is contrary to the binary categories of male and female”. They may also be subjected to damaging, medically-discredited ‘conversion therapies’. Family members and friends would be required to betray them to the authorities, while people advocating for the rights of LGBT+ people may face up to ten years’ imprisonment.

United Nations human rights experts have condemned the bill. Claims that it protects the nation, preserves traditional and faith-based values lack credibility. Instead, it appears to be an attempt to exploit religion, and tap into the tendency to scapegoat vulnerable minorities, in the quest for power, even if this ultimately undermines the rights of all in Ghana. Sadly in other parts of the world too, faith is too often misused as a cover for excessive wealth-seeking, hatred or injustice.

Trying to justify state violence

People who are LGBT or even intersex are already facing human rights abuses and this will become far worse if the bill is passed. As the UN experts’ letter pointed out, the bill seems to “establish a system of State-sponsored discrimination and violence of great magnitude.” They warned of “deeply stigmatising language”, promotion of unnecessary medical interventions on intersex children, increasing ill health and poverty and undermining freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association.

The authors took the view that promoting ‘conversion therapy’, if the bill passed, “would constitute legislatively sponsored ill treatment and torture.” The suffering which would be inflicted by this measure, and “advocacy of hatred”, was outlined.

The Anglican bishops, in an attempt to justify the bill, stated, “We see LGBTQI+ as unrighteousness in the sight of God and therefore will do anything within our powers and mandate to ensure that the bill comes into fruition.” They claimed that homosexual practice is condemned by both the Old and New Testaments. The case for this is quite flimsy and numerous biblical scholars and other Christians disagree, as these leaders should be well aware (and in private some may be more accepting). Some denominations and other Anglican provinces now celebrate marriages of same-gender couples and ordain openly LGBT+ ministers, believing this is in line with what God is calling them to do.

But, even if same-sex love and gender diversity were sinful, criminal sanctions need not follow. For instance, senior clergy in Ghana are not pushing for men to be jailed for heterosexual adultery, which also tends to undermine families more than sex between single persons of any gender. International Anglican conferences have repeatedly endorsed human rights and condemned criminalisation, stating that the “victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by Him and deserving the best we can give – pastoral care and friendship.”

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy,” says Jesus in the Semon on the Mount. He emphasises the importance of love and warns, “‘Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get… In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.”

Acting on this would land Ghanaians in prison, if top clergy have their way, though Jesus also promises, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5.7, 10; 7.1-2, 12). Religious freedom, for those whose faith leads them to defend justice and compassion, is also at stake. In the Gospels he himself is put to death at the hands of political and religious leaders, though this does not succeed in silencing him permanently.

The bishops also claimed that “the Ghanaian tradition and culture do not permit such act[s].” But cultural heritage is rather more varied – even if, in colonial times, homophobia and transphobia were promoted across the world, as if they were marks of civilisation – and continually developing. These days, US-based far-right organisations promote anti-LGBT+ prejudice globally. If the bill passes, human rights and constitutional values in Ghana will be seriously undermined: if basic freedoms can be so easily ignored on this issue, why not on others, if this suits the powerful or power-hungry?

Solidarity with LGBT+ people and human rights defenders in Ghana is important, especially at a time when rights violations across the world are all too common. Senior church leaders elsewhere have tended to be slow off the mark in speaking out publicly but, if they stay silent too long, their own reputations may be affected, as well as trust in them. The bill is cruel not only in the punishments it imposes but also the potential to tear families and communities apart and stir up hatred and scorn, doing spiritual as well as physical and psychological damage. It deserves to be firmly opposed.

————

© Savitri Hensman is an Ekklesia associate and respected commentator on welfare and other issues. She is author of the book Sexuality, struggle and saintliness: same-sex love and the church (Ekklesia, 2016)  and has been involved in seeking greater inclusion. She wrote on ‘Health or Wealth?’ in Feast or Famine? (DLT, 2017). Her latest articles can be found here. Archived articles (pre-2020) are here.