Analysis-What can world leaders do to make COP26 deforestation pledge a success?


By Michael Taylor

KUALA LUMPUR (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Global leaders who have pledged to halt deforestation by 2030 must move quickly to strengthen forest protection laws, line up funding, and include indigenous people in conservation efforts to have the best chance of success, environmentalists said.

More than 100 leaders last month agreed to halt and reverse deforestation and land degradation by the end of the decade, underpinned by $19 billion in public and private funds to invest in protecting and restoring forests.

The commitment - made at the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow and backed by forest-rich countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo - covers forests totalling more than 13 million square miles (33.7 million sq km).

Fran Raymond Price, global forest practice lead at environmental group WWF International, said there was an urgent need to see the Glasgow forest declaration turned into meaningful action.

“The political will demonstrated by the governments who signed this commitment is a welcome first step,” she told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

“(But) we need to see this now translated into legislative action within the next year or two, with transparency, accountability and involvement of ... indigenous peoples and local communities,” she said.

Cutting down forests has major implications for global goals to curb warming, as trees absorb about a third of the planet-heating carbon emissions produced worldwide, but release the carbon they store when they rot or are burned.

Forests also provide food and livelihoods, clean the air and water, support human health, are an essential habitat for wildlife, regulate rainfall and offer flood protection.

Last year, an area of tropical forest the size of the Netherlands was lost, according to monitoring service Global Forest Watch.

The Glasgow declaration was broadly welcomed but many environmentalists noted similar zero deforestation pledges had repeatedly been made and not met by both governments and businesses.

Those include the 2014 New York Declaration on Forest (NYDF), the United Nations sustainability goals and targets set by global household brands.

Under the Glasgow pledge, further leader and ministerial meetings are expected in 2022 and beyond to assess progress and drive implementation of the pact.

“Transparency, as well as continued pressure from civil society, indigenous groups and local communities, and consumers, will be critical elements to monitor the progress on commitments and enable success,” said Price on the deal’s implementation.

“For the future of our forests, we need this declaration to succeed.”

FOREST CONVERSION BANS

An annual report published in late October on the NYDF - backed by more than 200 countries, firms and green groups - found that the sustained reductions in forest loss needed to meet its 2030 target to end deforestation are highly unlikely.

To avoid the Glasgow pact meeting a similar fate, countries that committed to the accord and that import deforestation-risk commodities - like palm oil, soy, timber and beef - need to quickly introduce legislation and regulations to boost conservation.

Companies in richer countries like China, the United States, Britain and those in the European Union often rely on such raw materials to fuel their businesses - but don’t always have safeguards to protect forests.

There has been some progress however, with both the EU and United States proposing new laws aimed at curbing the import of commodities linked to deforestation.

Countries should also make it mandatory for businesses in those commodity sectors to put in place human rights and deforestation safeguards, environmentalists said.

As well, companies should use technology to monitor forest destruction and ensure supply chains are sustainable and transparent, they said.

Forest-rich nations where many of these commodities are produced will also need to implement new and stricter laws to halt deforestation and land conversion, they added.

Those should include incentives for small landowners and local communities to bolster forest protection, they said.

“A good and logical first step by the signatory governments would be to issue a moratorium on all further destruction and degradation of intact forests,” said Toerris Jaeger, secretary general of the Oslo-based Rainforest Foundation Norway.

“Once an area of intact forests is fragmented and opened up through road construction, it’s extremely hard to avoid further deforestation and loss of carbon to the atmosphere.”

Indonesia’s environment minister dismissed as “inappropriate and unfair” the Glasgow deal to end deforestation by 2030, in an abrupt about-face just days after her country agreed to the pledge.

But the Southeast Asian nation, which is home to the world’s third-largest tropical forests and also its biggest palm-oil producer, has seen deforestation rates buck the worsening global trend in recent years.

That is partly due to an Indonesian moratorium on new conversion permits for primary forest and peatland, and on new palm oil plantations.

Jaeger said the most recent national climate action plans submitted by the five largest rainforest countries under the Paris Agreement would still allow 20 million hectares (49 million acres) of tropical forests to be cut down over the next decade.

“Ending deforestation will require changes in policy, regulation, governance and financial incentives across different countries and actors, to make it more valuable to keep the forest than destroy it,” he said.

ACT FAST

In a sign of the scale of the challenge, deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest soared 22% in a year to the highest level since 2006, the government’s annual report showed last month.

The data undercut President Jair Bolsonaro’s assurances that the country is curbing illegal logging.

And while causes of deforestation vary from place to place, some of the challenges faced are common across different regions, Jaeger said.

These include a lack of policies that efficiently regulate land use and deforestation, lax or missing enforcement of the laws and regulations that do exist, and weak land rights for the traditional communities that live in and off the forests.

Other problems are financial incentives that stimulate economic or subsistence activities driving deforestation, and a lack of financial reward for protecting forests, he added.

“A joint approach across all these dimensions is needed to bend the curve and end deforestation by 2030,” he said.

“It’s important to act fast and not wait as we approach 2030 to start reducing deforestation.”

Nations also have to develop ways to reward the maintenance of intact forests and the restoration of degraded and deforested areas, to make it feasible to end deforestation and increase forest cover, Jaeger said

Funding for this will in large part have to come from rich countries, he added.

A study published late last month by Britain’s University of Sheffield found that, globally, indigenous peoples’ lands have roughly a fifth less deforestation than non-protected areas.

“Indigenous peoples must be at the centre of forest protection,” said Kiki Taufik, head of Greenpeace’s Indonesian forests campaign.

“Efforts to halt deforestation cannot succeed without rapid recognition of indigenous peoples’ land rights.”

JOIN HANDS

For the Glasgow pledge to be effective, it must include a simple reporting mechanism that transparently discloses progress, said Emmanuelle Berenger, sustainable forest management lead at certification body the Rainforest Alliance.

As well, all government ministries must work together, not separately, on tackling deforestation, she added, while financiers and businesses also need to build strong alliances around the Glasgow declaration’s goals.

In agriculture, firms should move rapidly to responsible sourcing, ensuring human rights are respected and local communities’ livelihoods are considered, Berenger said.

Affordable technologies - such as satellite images - are available to monitor progress of the declaration, she said.

Forest protection received unprecedented visibility at the COP26 meeting but countries now need to pivot swiftly from commitments and goodwill to action, including providing more finance, said Tim Christophersen, who leads the U.N. Environment Programme’s nature-for-climate branch.

That should happen no later than by COP27, set to be held next year in Egypt, he added.

The Glasgow meeting should provide the impetus for nations to build strong partnerships with buyers, sellers and other parties in the “forest carbon value chain”, especially indigenous and local people, he said.

“Never have we attempted this kind of complex systems change in such a short time frame ... but we have all we need to make it happen,” he said of the 2030 goal.

“We have climate champions across society - from youth leadership in the Global North to the indigenous peoples of the Global South. We have only to join hands and make it happen.”

Reporting by Michael Taylor @MickSTaylor; Editing by Laurie Goering. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers the lives of people around the world who struggle to live freely or fairly. Visit news.trust.org

Editorial
CLIMATE TALKS
COP26: The big polluting rich world cop out, yet again


| Updated on November 15, 2021

At the COP26, the rich countries yet again failed to show leadership in arresting climate change

After nearly two weeks of hectic parleys between “almost 200 countries”, the Glasgow climate pact yet again failed to break through on the vexed issue of ‘climate justice’ — which is, making the rich countries that are responsible for the stock of carbon emissions finance the transition of the rest of the world to greener fuels and other technologies. The key talking point was around India and China diluting the clause on ‘phase out’ of coal, with the two countries insisting that it be replaced by ‘phase down’. Finally, the clause in the pact reads as: “...accelerating efforts towards phase-down of unabated coal and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”. This is just as well as far as India is concerned, which has already announced an ambitious transition plan to renewables and cannot be expected to phase out coal overnight when it still accounts for 75 per cent of electricity generated. Coal producers such as Australia and major consumers such as China and US have won a reprieve. However, as the UN Secretary General, among other cautious optimists, has noted, the COP26 sets the “building blocks for progress”. Besides flagging climate finance and continuing reliance on fossil fuels as key issues, the meet can boast of two major achievements: commitments to end deforestation and drastically reduce methane emissions. While oil and gas have not been explicitly called out the way coal has been -- and this is despite the fact that coal, oil and gas have an equal share in current emissions – the sector may have to step up its role in curbing methane emissions. While animal husbandry and agriculture are major contributors to methane emissions, it is a tricky issue to tackle since it is linked to livelihoods.

The Glasgow text accepts the need for adaptation finance for dealing with ongoing climate events in vulnerable countries. However, to break the deadlock on climate finance (the $100 billion per annum promised years back has not seen the light of day) a different tack may be needed — one that looks at China as an equal partner with the OECD in cleaning up the atmosphere. If it is indeed the case that emissions since 1990 account for a major share of the emissions since the 1750s, as EU-based researchers suggest, then China too must own up to more responsibility. China is the world’s biggest polluter, accounting for 27 per cent of annual emissions, with US in second place at 11 per cent and India at 6 per cent. China, which accounts for over 60 per cent of global coal demand, has indicated that its emissions will peak by 2030 and that it will hit net-zero by 2060. These goals are not convincing enough

India’s climate ambitions with respect to energy transition are exemplary, given its low per capita income and development ambitions. However, it should have signed the deforestation pledge taken by over 110 countries. With emissions once again climbing to near pre-pandemic levels, business as usual cannot go on. The economic costs of climate change are getting too serious to ignore.

A former Trump aide is trying to build a violent, ultranationalist, right-wing Christian takeover of the US

Michael Flynn U.S. Air Force, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Thomas Lecaque December 01, 2021


Michael Flynn is always in the news for the worst reasons.

Today, it’s because of the former Trump advisor’s feud with Lin Wood and the leaking of text messages and audio recording during which he calls QAnon “total nonsense” as well as a CIA psy-op. Last time, he was calling for a single religion in the United States. Time before that, QAnon members accused him of being a Satanist for a sermon at a church drawing from a former New Age apocalyptic leader.

Next time, it may be for something worse. In any case, everything Flynn has been doing suggests that QAnon or not, his audience, his rhetoric and his goals are far more concrete and far more sinister than the mocking media coverage suggests. Let’s start in September.

On September 17, Flynn was at the “Opening the Heavens” Conference at the Lord of Hosts Church in Omaha, Nebraska. That event claimed to be “an annual, multi-day event where the prophetic heart of God and the manifestation of His supernatural power are demonstrated to those in attendance and [those] viewing online around the world!”00:0401:44

Flynn spoke alongside a number of “prophetic” pastors, including Gene Bailey, executive director of Kenneth Copeland ministries, whose spiritual warfare preaching got the heavy-metal treatment last year.

Flynn’s speech made news due to QAnon’s reaction to it. It was said to be Satanic, ironic given QAnon’s resemblance to the Satanic Panic of the 1980s. Flynn’s speech resembled a 1984 sermon by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, founder of the Church Universal and Triumphant, a New Age apocalyptic group best known for their move to bunkers in Montana to await a prophesied nuclear apocalypse in 1990. Not only was it a failed doomsday cult, but it was a theosophic movement, something associated with Lucifer by its 18th-century founder.

Flynn said he felt called to St. Michael, the archangel and his namesake. While the link between Prophet and Flynn is interesting, the text of Flynn’s “Archangel Prayer” is all by itself not so great:

We are your instrument
Of those sevenfold rays
And all your archangels, all of them
We will not retreat, we will not retreat
We will stand our ground
We will not fear to speak
We will be the instrument of your will
Whatever it is
In your name, and in the names of your legions
We are freeborn, and shall remain freeborn
And we shall not be enslaved by any foe
Within or without
So help me God.

“Seven rays” is a concept used in theosophy and in the Summit Lighthouse. Prophet’s prayer to Archangel Michael, which people have compared Flynn’s sermon, is not only part of the theosophic movement, but an aggressively anti-Communist talk, ending:
Archangel Michael, Stand with me!
Save my child!
Save my household!
Save my nation and bind those Communist hordes!

Others can analyze the I AM movement and its issues, but the use of militant religious language and the comparison to an aggressively apocalyptic, anti-Communist doomsday cult is bad enough.

Then in early November, Flynn and Wood had a series of exchanges -- people have focused on the audio recording of Flynn calling QAnon a CIA disinfo operation — but more worrying was the fact that he told Wood, on November 3, to read an article proving QAnon is a fraud.

Why more worrying? Because it was written by Hal Turner, a neo-Nazi radio host who’s promoted various QAnon conspiracies and served time for threatening elected officials -- he advocated murder repeatedly. The article is incredibly scary. It included this passage:

The Trump Anon believers want SOMEBODY ELSE to do it for them. Well, I’ve said this before and I will say it again now: Nobody is coming to save them/us. Nobody is coming to save the country. If you want something done, you gotta do it yourself. And until someone (but not me) decides that it is finally time to throw away all the comforts of this life, and brutally slaughter the people who are doing all these things, (and by “slaughter” I mean exactly that) then all these things will continue, unabated, to the destruction of our country and our oh-so-comfy lives.

This is standard Turner fare -- to preserve white nationalist power, people have to murder others, including elected officials -- but to have someone with Flynn’s background and his elite status within QAnon conspiracy and other movements promoting it is infinitely more terrifying than the entertainment value of seeing him bashing QAnon.

A week later Flynn and Wood were in Springfield, Missouri, at a “Preserving America” event billed as “Come and listen to America’s tier-1 patriot speakers and learn about preserving America under the Constitution.” Outside of the Springfield News-Leader, it garnered little press -- but one local sheriff attending claimed he had, “A great conversation with General Flynn. He wanted me to know the American Sheriff is the last line of defense for our freedom. I agree!”

Flynn has spoken with Richard Mack for the “Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association” podcast, an anti-government extremist group that works to recruit sheriffs into the “patriot” militia movement. The comment should be taken in that light.

Then there is Flynn’s ongoing “Reawaken America” tour, the most recent news items before the Wood blowup. On November 13, the tour was at the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, John Hagee’s church.

Hagee is an apocalypse minded Christian Zionist and his son and executive pastor of the church, Matt, was on stage for the event. The “Reawaken America Tour,” a QAnon speaking tour, has numerous pastors presenting -– Dave Scarlett, Mark Burns, Phil Hotsenpiller, Leon Benjamin, Greg Locke, Jackson Lahmeyer, Brian Gibson among them. All have pushed the Big Lie and Christian Nationalism.

On stage, Flynn said, “if we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion. One nation under God, and one religion under God.” The clip got widespread media play, but it is much more important in that broader context. “Reawaken America” has events in Dallas in December at Elevate Life Church in Frisco, where Pastor Keith Craft runs men-only “Warrior Nights,” dresses in militant garb, and mocks mask-wearing and the government.

In January, they’ll be at Dream City Church in Phoenix, which had hosted a Trump rally in 2020 and had been sent a cease-and-desist about promoting a fraudulent air filter system that June.

In February, they’ll be at Trinity Gospel Temple in Canton, Ohio, where Pastor Dave Lombardi tweeted out on November 3: “‘King Cyrus’ will prevail! Christian principles will prevail!,” and “the ‘Walls of Jericho’ will fall tonight! The Gospel message will prevail! The March continues!”

Both ideas have violent overtones — the fall of the walls of Jericho is followed by the massacre of all inhabitants. “King Cyrus,” a reference here to Donald Trump, destroyed the empire of the Babylonians.

These events are linking congregations nationwide in a specific project -- to build an ultranationalist Christian right to control of America.

Flynn’s fall events show it is not as simple as whether or not he’s a grifter who pretends to believe in QAnon. He is. He’s a fraud. He’s corrupt. And we already knew this. But he’s also a corrupt fanatic, who believes in overthrowing the government and imposing a theocracy. He certainly seems comfortable reading and promoting neo-Nazi articles advocating the literal slaughter of enemies while doing so.

Stop laughing at Michael Flynn.

He’s dangerous.

Driving him out of QAnon is great, but the other groups he’s engaged with, the other ideologies he’s a part of, are no laughing matter.

The real history of US anti-abortion politics began in 1662 — and is bound to the legacy of slavery

 Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivers remarks during her swearing-in ceremony as Supreme Court Associate Justice Monday, Oct. 26, 2020, on the South Lawn of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks)

Mia Brett December 01, 2021

Another week, another terrifying abortion case at the Supreme Court. Today, the Supreme Court considered Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which concerns a Mississippi 15-week abortion ban. Since 15-week abortion bans, and all pre-viability abortion bans, are unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade, the only reason to even hear this case is for the Court to strongly consider upholding the ban and overturning Roe. While anti-abortion activists have been working toward this moment since the late 1970s, it's no surprise they’re finding success in a moment of white backlash and growing white supremacy. The real history of abortion politics in this country should actually begin in 1662 with the first law codifying race and inheritable slavery.

The first 40 years of slavery in the North American British colonies treated slavery as it had been used previously in Europe. Slavery was mostly justified on the basis of religion or having conquered people and there were paths for slaves out of their enslavement. The slave system in Virginia completely changed with a 1662 law that made race and enslavement an inheritable condition through the mother. This law became the basis of the American racialized chattel system of slavery. It also clearly linked racial construction and the continuation of white supremacy to reproduction. Enslaved Black women would produce enslaved Black children while white women would produce free white children. The race of the fathers did not matter.

As a result of such a law, controlling the reproduction of women was vitally important both to produce more slave labor and to control white purity. White men had no downside to sexually abusing their slaves, as the resulting children would be considered Black. Alternatively, extreme social repercussions had to be placed on any white woman having sexual intercourse with a Black man, as the system could not tolerate Black kids being born free to white women.

Black women’s reproduction was a vital part of the American slave system, especially after the international slave trade was closed in 1808. Black women were forced to engage in sexual relationships with other slaves or were often sexually abused by their masters. Early gynecology was also created on the bodies of enslaved Black women because their value was so tied to their reproduction. During slavery, abortion became a tool of agency for enslaved Black women to not only control their own reproduction but also to resist the slave system.

For most of common law history, abortion was either explicitly allowed until quickening (when the baby moves) or ignored. Abortion, and most gynecological concerns, were the purview of women. While the laws might have only condoned abortions until quickening, there were rarely prosections for later abortions unless the abortion was a result of a violent assault against the mother. Abortions were performed by both tribal communities and early British colonies in the 1600s and used mostly safe herbal abortifacients. Anti-abortion laws began in the 1820s but only criminalized post-quickening. It wasn’t until after the Civil War that there was a focused movement to outlaw abortion.

The timing of a movement to criminalize abortion after the Civil War is not a coincidence. While Black people were enslaved, the supposed superiority of white people was evident through the difference in the legal treatment of the two races. However after the Civil War, Black people were no longer enslaved, and so white supremacy needed new tools to continue enforcing the racial hierarchy.

These efforts were dependent on a high white birth rate and strong prohibitions against interracial sex (for white women and Black men at least). The post-Civil War period also coincided with an increase of “less desirable” immigrants and concerns that ethnic minorities would take over cities if pure white women did not have enough children.

This period also saw changing gender roles with more women working outside the home and engaging in suffrage movements, thus threatening traditional households and lowering the white birth rate. Moreover, male gynecologists who had just built their field by experimenting on enslaved Black women also needed to discredit midwives and less medicalized avenues of healthcare.

Abortion was mostly ignored as it was the purview of women, but as male doctors took over gynecology, they encouraged legislative responses to abortion. These doctors also joined with eugenicist movements and warned that abortion could result in “race suicide.”

These efforts were successful. Abortion was criminalized in every state by 1910. This was the Jim Crow period in the South and the height of anti-immigrant fervor in the North. Not only was it important to ensure white women were having pure white babies to protect white supremacy, but white supremacist ideology was also dependent on there being a contrast to Blackness. More Black children not only meant more laborers but also were necessary to support the hierarchical view of the United States with white men on top. The threat of lynching was used to enforce strict racial boundaries between white women and Black men so white women’s reproduction could be controlled, and the pure white bloodline could be continued.

The success of the pro-abortion movement with Roe v. Wade in 1973 came only five years after Loving v. Virginia, which ended all bans on interracial marriage. While de facto segregation continued, de jure segregation had been outlawed and public places and schools were all theoretically integrated, even if that didn’t play out in practice. Nixon’s Southern Strategy capitalized on the conservative Christian values. Anti-abortion politics served as a more palatable political cause than anti-integration motives. The movements became inextricably linked.

Today, Republican politicians and far-right personalities are openly embracing “white replacement theory,” which is the newest name for the fear that there aren’t enough pure white babies being born. This eugenicist fear has the twist that a secret Jewish cabal is conspiring to encourage the non-white birth rate in order to harm white people.

While the anti-abortion and white supremacist movements are clearly intertwined, many anti-abortionists now claim abortion is really a Black genocide and it is racist to support it. Their narrative relies on misinformation and a racist paternalistic view of Black people.

In reality, white supremacy can’t survive without an alternative Blackness to condemn. They use fear-mongering about Black welfare queens to get elected. Taking reproductive control away from white men and putting it in the hands of women and pregnant people of all races is the biggest threat to white supremacist patriarchy. Anti-abortion sentiment is always just white supremacy in disguise.

The meaning of white supremacy since the rise of Donald Trump
Rod Graham
December 29, 2021

In a speech last month at Washington’s Martin Luther King Jr. monument, President Joe Biden described the January 6 insurrection as being about “white supremacy.” Later on, MSNBC did a segment on Thanksgiving in which guest commentator, Gyassi Ross, discussed its realities. Ross, who is Indigenous, sees it as the beginning of theft, genocide and “white supremacy.” After Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal, Colin Kaepernick tweeted, “white supremacy cannot be reformed.”

It seemed like the term had come out of nowhere. I decided to check Google Trends. From 2004 to about 2016, there were relatively few searches for the word “white supremacy.” Then in 2016, there was an increase in the frequency of searches, with several sharp spikes. Two of those spikes were in August 2017 and June 2020. What happened?

Donald Trump. One cannot say with certainty, but his rise, replete with far-right dog whistles and bullhorns, was probably explained by many writers through a lens of white supremacy. The spikes in search frequency in 2017 was probably because of Charlottesville’s “Unite the Right” rally. In June 2020, it was likely due to George Floyd protests.

The January 6 insurrection. Thanksgiving. Kyle Rittenhouse. Donald Trump. Unite The Right. George Floyd. All of these phenomena are linked to something called white supremacy. As I suspect this term will be a part of common parlance for some time, it’s worth explaining it.

The way we identify and discuss racism has changed quite a bit. That’s because the way racism is expressed has changed quite a bit.

Inquiries into racism were more straightforward 30 or 40 years ago. First, you ask: “Do you hate people of a different race than you, yes or no?” If no, they’re not a racist. Then you looked at laws and asked: “Are any laws on the books explicitly discriminating against a racial group?” If there are no laws like that on the books, then there is no racism.

Now consider how racism is discussed today. It’s rather complicated. For individuals, racism is no longer only about conscious hate and clear cases of discrimination. It’s about implicit biases and seemingly benign behaviors that have racist consequences. The focus has shifted from laws and policies that discriminate to laws and policies that may not appear at first to be discriminatory but turn out to have disproportionate effects. Scholars look at how interlocking institutions work to produce unequal outcomes, like the much-discussed “school to prison pipeline” populated by poor young Black and brown men.

All things considered, this is a net positive. Learning more about how something happens -- in this case, racial inequality -- should be seen as a good thing. Unfortunately, it is not. That, however, is primarily due to people rejecting the political consequences of this scholarship and then doubling back to question the merits of that scholarship.

How we understand white supremacy followed a similar trajectory.

Maintaining the racial hierarchy

White supremacy has in the past meant the maintenance of a racial hierarchy with white people at the top. In a white supremacist society, white people have the most power and privilege. White supremacists actively attempt to maintain and perpetuate this hierarchy.

Liberal media outlets have linked the events surrounding Kyle Rittenhouse to white supremacy. This may seem to be a stretch for many. Or, as Briahna Joy Gray titled an episode of her “Bad Faith” podcast, “Has White Supremacy Jumped the Shark?”

Rittenhouse is the teen who armed himself with a semi-automatic rifle and drove from Antioch, Illinois, to a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He said he was going to guard a car dealership. Rittenhouse got into an altercation with protestors, killing Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and injuring a third, Gaige Grosskreutz. He faced several counts but was cleared of all of them.

Some say these events had nothing to do with race or white supremacy. Rittenhouse is white. He killed two white people. They will point out that in an interview with Tucker Carlson, Rittenhouse said, “I support the BLM movement.” You see, no white supremacy here.

They would be wrong.

White supremacy is about maintaining a racial hierarchy. How that is done changes over time. People may still imagine Klansmen must be present for there to be white supremacy. Again, that would be wrong.

The Rittenhouse saga reveals exactly how people attempt to maintain white supremacy. It is white supremacy without white supremacists.

A supportive right-wing media ecosphere

Let’s start with the night of the killings. The Kenosha Police seemed to ally themselves with the militia group Boogaloo Bois. According to a statement from Boogaloo Bois member Ryan Balch, the police told the militia group “that they were going to be pushing the protesters towards us because we could deal with them … KPD made a conscious decision to abandon the people of Kenosha to people they felt [were] justified in using machines and weapons of war against.”

Then in January, after pleading not guilty to all charges against him, Rittenhouse went to a bar and posed for photos with members of the Proud Boys, a group described as neo-fascist, and flashed what many people call a “white power” hand sign (the okay hand gesture).

In the months leading up to the trial over $600,00 was raised for Rittenhouse on the Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo. This is not inherently problematic, as religious communities give all the time.

But the Blue Lives Matter flag on the page and the description “Kyle Rittenhouse just defended himself from a brutal attack by multiple members of the far-leftist group ANTIFA -- the experience was undoubtedly a brutal one” has a whiff of Christian nationalism.

During the trial, Judge Bruce Schroeder made several decisions that seemed to help Rittenhouse. He would not allow the two people killed, Rosenbaum and Huber, to be called victims. “Rioters. Arsonists. Looters. Refer to them that way,” he said. Despite visual evidence of a connection, he also would not allow the prosecution to connect Rittenhouse to the Proud Boys. He threw out two charges against the defendant, a curfew charge and a weapons possession charge.

And then there is the immediate aftermath. Far-right Congressmen Madison Cawthorn, Matt Gaetz and Paul Gosar have offered Rittenhouse an internship. The Monday after the trial, Rittenhouse appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show, pleading his case and innocence before a supportive right-wing media ecosphere

White supremacy without white supremacists

In the same way our understanding of racism has evolved, so has our understandings of white supremacy. How America’s racial hierarchy is maintained today is not the same as it was a century ago. In 2021, we don’t need white supremacists for there to be white supremacy.

Those Fox viewers tuning in to watch Rittenhouse’s interview with Carlson would say they were concerned with “upholding the right of self-defense.” The Proud Boys would say they are against “wokism.” People who contributed money to Rittenhouse’s crowdfund may say they are a “good Christian helping another good Christian.” The Kenosha police and Judge Schroeder may mutter something along the lines of “maintaining law and order.” The congressmen offering Rittenhouse an internship may say their concerns revolved around the “erosion of gun rights in this country” and so on.

That suggests an interest in maintaining the racial hierarchy.

It is a hierarchy where Black and brown people are at the bottom absorbing the lion’s share of the state-sanctioned violence meted out by hyper-aggressive police officers. Meanwhile, at the top of that hierarchy are white people who believe it’s their right to storm the Capitol to demand their chosen candidate be given the presidency.

Rod Graham is a sociologist. A professor at Virginia's Old Dominion University, he researches and teaches courses in the areas of cyber-crime and racial inequality. His work can be found at roderickgraham.com. Follow him @roderickgraham.

Key Middle East takeaways from US military budget

The $778bn budget provides hundreds of millions of dollars to continue the fight against the Islamic State group and provides Israel with further weapons systems

The 2022 NDAA requests $177m for US security operations to counter the IS group in Syria (AFP)

By MEE staff in Washington
Published date: 28 December 2021 

Earlier this week, US President Joe Biden signed into law the annual defence budget, giving the administration a whopping $778bn to work with next year for its national security and defence needs.

The 2022 National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) comes after a year that saw the US military withdraw from Afghanistan after two decades of war, Biden's announcement of an end to offensive support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition in Yemen, and the end of the combat mission in Iraq, though troops will remain there in support roles.

Despite such large changes to the military's posture, the amount of money earmarked for the Pentagon remains as high as ever, with this year's budget increasing five percent from 2021 and also being $25bn more than what Biden originally requested earlier this year.

Regarding the Middle East, this year's budget also comes as the Biden administration continues to shift its attention towards China. Still, much of the allocated funds to the region run similar to last year's budget.

Middle East Eye takes a look at the new NDAA and what the budget has in store for the US approach to the region next year.

Fund against IS

Similar to 2021, the 2022 NDAA requests hundreds of millions of dollars for the US's security operations in its Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund (CTEF) - $345m for Iraq and another $177m for Syria.

The funds come even after the United States officially announced an end to its combat mission in Iraq earlier this month, although American troops will remain in the country in a supporting role to the Iraqi military.

US forces' non-withdrawal gives Iran-backed factions new life in Iraq

Read More »

The Islamic State (IS) group seized large areas of Iraq in a lightning offensive in 2014, before being beaten back by a counter-insurgency campaign supported by a US-led military coalition.

Washington has been leading an anti-IS coalition with dozens of other countries since 2014.

While IS presents much less of a threat than it was several years ago, American and Iraqi counterterrorism officials say the group remains capable of launching a cheap, low-tech and largely rural campaign of violence that continues to cost lives.

Earlier this month, IS fighters killed four soldiers of the Kurdish Peshmerga soldiers - the main military force of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) that rules a semi-autonomous region of northern Iraq - and one civilian, and wounded six other people, according to security sources.

Israel's gifts

Military assistance to Israel has for years been a common sight within US defence budgets, and 2022 is no different.

The NDAA includes $108m that would go to Israel for purchasing parts for the Iron Dome short-range anti-missile system, which is co-produced by the US and Israel.

Another $62m will go to Israel for the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile system, and $30m for the David Sling Weapons System.

The budget also includes a $6m grant programme for "cybersecurity research and development". Last year's NDAA included a provision that cemented $3.3bn in annual aid to Israel until 2026.

While Washington's military aid to Israel has been met with increased scrutiny from progressive lawmakers, who have been calling for limits and restrictions, it continues to receive widespread bipartisan support in Congress.

Is Yemen's war moving to a 'grudging acceptance' of the Houthis?

Read More »

US funding for Israel's Iron Dome system particularly fell under the spotlight in September and October, when House Democrats moved to remove $1bn in funding for the aerial defence system from a stopgap spending bill.

The funds, however, were later approved in a separate bill that passed with an overwhelming majority, 420 votes to nine with two present votes.

Report on Saudi strikes in Yemen

The NDAA calls on the Biden administration to deliver a report on whether Saudi Arabia has taken part in any offensive air strikes inside Yemen that have resulted in civilian casualties.

It also places a prohibition on in-flight refuelling of any non-US aircraft that engaged in the war there.

The provisions come amid some opposition in Congress to Biden's stance on the war in Yemen. Earlier this year, the president announced an end to offensive support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition fighting the Iran-aligned Houthi movement in Yemen, but maintained it would continue to provide support to defend Saudi Arabia.

Many leading members of Congress have called for further, more concrete measures to fully end US support for the Saudi-led coalition, but these efforts have fallen short.

Earlier this month, the Senate approved the sale of $650m of advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles, missile launchers and other weapons to Saudi Arabia.

After six years of war, Yemen is frequently described as the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with 20.7 million people - 66 percent of the population, including 11.3 million children - in need of assistance.

Morocco and Western Sahara

One provision contained within the NDAA states that no funds may be used to support Morocco's military forces during multilateral exercises with the US until the Pentagon determines that Rabat "is committed to seeking a mutually acceptable political solution in Western Sahara".

In the waning months of his term in office, US president Donald Trump recognised Morocco's sovereignty over the contested Western Sahara to reward Rabat for normalising relations with Israel.

Ghost towns, rockets and drones: Polisario’s war in Western Sahara

Read More »

Dozens of US lawmakers have been calling on the Biden administration to reverse that decision, but the president has not made a public commitment to uphold or reverse US recognition.

However, according to a report by Axios in May, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told his Moroccan counterpart that the US would stick with the Trump determination.

Western Sahara, a territory in the northwest of Africa stretching over 266,000 square km, was under Spanish occupation until 1975.

Since then, the territory mostly fell under de facto Moroccan control. However, the Polisario Front has continued to push for its own proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

The conflict, which still flares up periodically, has led to the displacement of more than 100,000 Sahrawis, who mostly live in camps in Algeria.

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

Boris Johnson's government 'has licensed £2.8
billion in arms sales to human rights abusers'


A protester against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's visit to Britain in 2018. Saudi Arabia, which is waging a brutal war on Yemen, is the number one purchaser of British weaponry

THE government has licensed £2.8 billion worth of arms to human rights abusers since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, damning new analysis has found.

Since July 2019, the government has given the green light to the sale of billions of pounds’ worth of arms to repressive regimes.

The Scottish Greens compared government arms export data from the time period with a list of countries ranked as “not free” by Freedom House, a US-government-funded human rights monitoring group.

By far the largest buyer of British arms is Saudi Arabia, which accounts for £1.7bn worth of the value of arms licensed.

Other nations include Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia has been waging a war on Yemen, using British-made fighter jets, bombs and missiles.

The Court of Appeal ruled in 2019 that these arms sales were approved illegally. Sales resumed in 2020 following a decision by the then international trade secretary Liz Truss.

The decision to renew arms sales is currently subject to a High Court review.

Qatar has bought £391 million worth of arms, including ammunition, components for combat aircraft and sniper rifles.

Military combat vehicles, as well as sniper and assault rifles worth £347m have been sold to the UAE, while Egypt has spent £106m on British-made aircraft parts, ammunition and sniper rifles.

The Turkish government has purchased £77m worth of arms, including components for military combat vehicles, components for combat helicopters and components for surface-to-surface missiles since July 2019.

The Scottish Greens said the continued approach of allowing these sales by British government ministers was completely unacceptable.

The party’s external affairs spokesperson Ross Greer MSP said: “Boris Johnson may act like a clown on the world stage, but the arms sales that his government has approved have done a great deal of damage.

“Arms dealers profit from delivering death, destruction and misery across the world. But they couldn’t do it without the complicity and support of arms-dealing governments like the UK.

“UK-made weapons are playing an instrumental role in the Saudi-led bombing of Yemen. It has created one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, but that has done nothing to halt the arms sales.

“As the death toll continues to rise, it is simply unacceptable that Boris Johnson and his colleagues are willing to allow and even promote this state-sanctioned murder.

“With independence we can take a different path and build a fairer, greener Scotland that stands up for human rights rather than one that arms human rights abusers and cosies up to dictatorships.”

A spokeswoman for the Westminster government said: “The UK takes its export control responsibilities very seriously and operates one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world.

“We rigorously examine each export licence application on a case-by-case basis and will not issue any export licences that do not meet strict criteria.”

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

INDIA
'Doctors Should Be In Hospital, Not On Streets': Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal to PM Modi

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to look into ways to "personally resolve" the issue, as he asserted that doctors should be in hospitals, not streets when the coronavirus cases are rising again.

Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal. | PTI

Published: 28 Dec 2021

Amid the ongoing protest by resident doctors in Delhi, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Tuesday wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to look into ways to "personally resolve" the issue, as he asserted that doctors should be in hospitals, not streets when the coronavirus cases are rising again.

In his letter, he also urged the Prime Minister to ensure that the NEET-PG counselling process is expedited.

"On one hand, the Omicon variant of the coronavirus is spreading at an alarming speed, on the other, doctors in hospitals under the central government in Delhi are on strike," Mr Kejriwal said in the letter.

In a tweet, he shared a copy of the letter, and also wrote on Twitter: "We strongly condemn the police brutality inflicted on the doctors. The Prime Minister must accept their demands soon."

Intensifying their stir over the delay in NEET-PG 2021 counselling, resident doctors in Delhi on Tuesday gathered in a large number on the premises of Centre-run Safdarjung Hospital, even as police personnel were deployed to ensure maintanence of law and order.

Their protest, a day earlier had taken a dramatic turn, as medics and police personnel had faced off in streets, with both sides claiming several persons suffered injuries.

Also, later in the day on Tuesday, Union Health Minister Mansukh Mandaviya held a meeting with a delegation of protesting resident doctors and urged them to call off their strike over delay in NEET PG counselling in the larger interest of the public.

In his letter, Mr Kejriwal said that doctors have been on strike for several days, and they served during the pandemic by risking their lives, and urged the Prime Minister to "personally resolve the issue at the earliest".

"COVID-19 cases are rising again. The doctors should be in the hospitals, not in the streets," he wrote.

However, police on Monday had denied any allegations of lathicharge or use of abusive language from their end, and said, 12 protestors were detained and released later.

Mr Kejriwal in his letter said that these are the same doctors that have treated Covid patients over the last year-and-a-half, without caring about their own lives during the pandemic.

He added that numerous doctors have lost their lives to the deadly virus, but they continued to work tirelessly and did not neglect their duty.

Resident doctors at many big government hospitals like Safdarjung, Ram Manohar Lohia are on strike for the last one month due to repeated postponement of NEET-PG counselling. It is a matter of deep despair that even after their persistent struggle, the demands of these resident doctors were not listened to by the central government, he added.

"However, it is even more upsetting that yesterday, when these doctors were protesting peacefully, the police behaved violently and harassed them," the chief minister alleged.

"Delay in NEET-PG counselling not only affects the future of these doctors but at the same time also causes a shortage of doctors in the hospitals. The burden on the rest of the doctors increases due to this as well. I request the central government to conduct NEET-PG counselling as soon as possible," Mr Kejriwal added.

Myanmar: UN Special Envoy calls for New Year ceasefire

As violence continues to escalate in Myanmar, the UN’s Special Envoy for Myanmar has called for all parties to observe a New Year’s ceasefire throughout the country.

Civilians fleeing from violence in Myanmar

By Christopher Wells
The UN’s Special Envoy on Myanmar says she is “deeply concerned by the continued escalation of violence in Kayin State and other parts of Myanmar,” which has resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including large numbers of women and children.
Calls for a peaceful solution
In a statement released on Monday, Noeleen Heyzer calls on all parties in the country “to exercise the utmost restraint a seek a peaceful solution in the interests of the people and their livelihood.”
Heyzer urged the various parties to honour their obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law, to ensure free movement of refugees and displaced persons so that they can reach safety, and to allow humanitarian assistance to be provided to those in need. “To this end,” the statement reads, “she appeals for a New Year’s ceasefire throughout Myanmar.”
Civilians massacred
On Tuesday, the UN’s Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Martin Griffiths, called on Myanmar authorities to investigate the reported killing of at least 35 civilians that opposition activists blamed on government soldiers.
Griffiths said there were credible reports that civilians, including at least one child, were forced from vehicles, killed, and burned, in an attack in Kayah state on Friday.
“I am horrified by reports of an attack against civilians,” said Griffiths in a statement, adding, “I condemn this grievous incident and all attacks against civilians throughout the country, which are prohibited under international humanitarian law.”

27/12/2021 Cardinal Bo: Myanmar is a war zone

All of Myanmar a war zone
Earlier this week, Burmese Cardinal Charles Bo, the Archbishop of Yangon, called on the military to stop “bombing, shelling, and killing,” while also calling on the democracy movement and armed ethnic groups “to strive earnestly for peace.”
He denounced the massacre in Kayah State as “a heartbreaking and horrific atrocity,” which he condemned unreservedly.
“The whole of our beloved Myanmar is now a war zone,” he lamented, and he urged “all those holding guns to put down their weapons.”

Save the Children confirms deaths of two aid workers in Myanmar mass killing

The U.K. aid group calls for an arms embargo on Myanmar after Christmas eve slaughter of 35 civilians.

2021.12.28

Destroyed vehicles in Kayah state's Hpruso township, Dec. 24, 2021.

 Karenni Nationalities Defense Force

Save the Children confirmed Tuesday that two of its staff were killed in a Christmas Eve massacre in eastern Myanmar blamed on junta troops who forced 35 people from their vehicles, killed them and burned their bodies in an incident that drew U.N. and U.S. condemnation.

Save the Children, a U.K.-based aid organization with 900 staff operating in Myanmar, had confirmed over the weekend that a car used by their group was found burned near Moso village in Kayah state. On Tuesday they said two aid workers, fathers of infant children, were among the massacre victims.

“It is with profound sadness that we are confirming today that two members of Save the Children’s staff were among at least 35 people, including women and children, who were killed on Friday 24th December in an attack by the Myanmar military in Kayah State, in the east of the country,” the charity said in a statement.

“The men were on their way back to their office after working on a humanitarian response in a nearby community when they were caught up in the attack. The military forced people from their cars, arrested some, killed many and burnt the bodies,” it added.

The men were not named for security reasons, said Save the Children.

The group has temporarily suspended operations in Kayah, Chin, and parts of Magway and Kayin, said Inger Ashing, chief executive of Save the Children.

“This news is absolutely horrifying. Violence against innocent civilians including aid workers is intolerable, and this senseless attack is a breach of International Humanitarian Law,” said Ashing, who called for an arms embargo on Myanmar and action by the U.N. Security Council and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Members of the ethnic Karenni Nationalities Defense Force (KNDF), an armed group fighting the junta, told RFA’s Myanmar Service Monday that women and children were among those slaughtered along a highway near Moso village in Kayah’s Hpruso township.

On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken condemned the attack and called for an end to the sale of arms and dual-use technology to the junta that took over the country in a coup on Feb. 1.

“We are alarmed by the military regime’s brutality across much of Burma, including most recently in Kayah and Karen States,” he said a statement.

“The targeting of innocent people and humanitarian actors is unacceptable, and the military’s widespread atrocities against the people of Burma underscore the urgency of holding its members accountable,” Blinken added.

The top U.S. diplomat’s remarks followed a statement of condemnation on Sunday from Martin Griffiths, the U.N. under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, who said he was “horrified” by the reports and demanded a probe into the attack.

“I condemn this grievous incident and all attacks against civilians throughout the country, which are prohibited under international humanitarian law,” he said in a statement.

“I call upon the authorities to immediately commence a thorough and transparent investigation into the incident so that perpetrators can be swiftly brought to justice,” said Griffiths.

Junta spokesman and Deputy Information Minister Zaw Min Tun said on Monday that an incident had occurred in the area involving people “killed in the crossfire” between the military and unidentified “gunmen.”

“Our security forces encountered seven vehicles in the area, so they asked the vehicles to stop, but they refused and started to drive away. When our forces opened fire with small arms, they fired back at us,” he said.

Myanmar, which has endured five decades of harsh military rule since its independence from Britain in 1948, was thrown into political crisis on Feb. 1 when the military seized power from the country’s democratically elected National League for Democracy (NLD) government.

In the more than 10 months since, the military has killed at least 1,377 civilians and arrested nearly 8,300 others, mostly during widespread peaceful protests of the junta. The military has also launched offensives against several armed ethnic groups and prodemocracy People’s Defense Force militias in the country’s remote border regions.

Reported by RFA’s Myanmar Service. Written in English by Paul Eckert.

Save the Children staff confirmed dead in

Myanmar massacre

In this photo provided by the Karenni Nationalities Defense Force (KNDF), vehicles smolder in Hpruso township, Kayah state, Myanmar, Friday, Dec. 24, 2021. Myanmar government troops rounded up villagers, some believed to be women and children, fatally shot more than 30 and set the bodies on fire, a witness and other reports said Saturday. (KNDF via AP)

The Associated Press
Published Tuesday, December 28, 2021 9:34AM EST
Last Updated Tuesday, December 28, 2021 9:34AM EST

BANGKOK (AP) -- The humanitarian group Save the Children said Tuesday it has confirmed that two of its staff were among at least 35 people, including children, who were killed in eastern Myanmar on Christmas Eve in an attack it blamed on the country's military.

It said the two staff members were caught up in the attack in Kayah state as they were traveling back to their office after conducting humanitarian activities in a nearby community.

“Violence against innocent civilians including aid workers is intolerable, and this senseless attack is a breach of International Humanitarian Law,” the group's chief executive, Inger Ashing, said in a statement.

RELATED STORIES

• Photos of aftermath of massacre in Myanmar fuel outrage
• Save the Children says staff missing after Myanmar massacre

“This is not an isolated event. The people of Myanmar continue to be targeted with increasing violence and these events demand an immediate response,” Ashing said.

The army seized power in February, ousting the elected government and arresting top officials. Its action was met by nonviolent nationwide demonstrations, which security forces quashed with deadly force, killing nearly 1,400 civilians, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners.

Peaceful protests have continued, but an armed resistance has also grown amid the severe crackdown, to the point that U.N. experts have warned the country could be sliding into civil war.

Save the Children called on the U.N. Security Council to respond to the army violence with steps including an arms embargo. It also urged the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to press for the implementation of an agreement reached in April with Myanmar's leader calling for the cessation of violence in the country and mediation by an ASEAN special envoy.

Photos of the attack have spread on social media in Myanmar, fueling outrage against the military.

The photos show the charred bodies of over 30 people in three burned-out vehicles who were reportedly shot by government troops as they were fleeing combat.

On Sunday, the U.S. Embassy in Myanmar said it was appalled by the “barbaric attack in Kayah state that killed at least 35 civilians, including women and children.”

“We will continue to press for accountability for the perpetrators of the ongoing campaign of violence against the people of Burma,” it said, using Myanmar's previous name.

A villager who said he went to the scene told The Associated Press that the victims had fled the fighting between armed resistance groups and Myanmar's army near Koi Ngan village, which is just beside Mo So, on Friday. He said they were killed after they were arrested by troops while heading to refugee camps in the western part of the township. His account could not be immediately verified.

A report in the state-run Myanma Alinn newspaper on Saturday said the fighting near Mo So broke out on Friday when members of ethnic guerrilla forces, known as the Karenni National Progressive Party, and those opposed to the military drove in “suspicious” vehicles and attacked security forces after refusing to stop.

The newspaper said the seven vehicles they were traveling in were destroyed in a fire. It gave no further details about the killings.

Earlier this month, government troops were also accused of rounding up villagers, some believed to be children, tying them up and slaughtering them. An opposition leader, Dr. Sasa, who uses only one name, said the civilians were burned alive.

Save the Children said it has been working in Myanmar since 1995, providing healthcare, food, education and child protection services. It said it has suspended operations in the region of the attack.

UK worker who stayed home over fear of Covid fails in discrimination claim

Woman tried to claim her fear of catching virus was a protected belief, after her employer refused to pay her

An empty office in lockdown. Neither the claimant nor her employer were named in the judgment.

 Photograph: Christophe Archambault/AFP/Getty Images


Helen Pidd and agency
Wed 29 Dec 2021 

A fear of catching Covid-19 is not a protected belief under the Equality Act, a judge has ruled, after a woman claimed she was discriminated against by her employer when she refused to go into work during the pandemic.

A tribunal held in Manchester this month heard that the claimant refused to return to her workplace in July 2020 because she had a “genuine fear” of contracting coronavirus and passing it on to her partner, who was at high risk of becoming seriously unwell.

Neither the woman nor her employer were named in the judgment.

In a statement given to the tribunal, the worker said her employer had refused to pay her and she had suffered financial detriment as a result.

She said: “I claim this was discrimination on the grounds of this belief in regard to coronavirus and the danger from it to public health. This was at the time of the start of the second wave of Covid-19 and the huge increase in cases of the virus throughout the country.”

Asked what her belief was, she told the tribunal: “A fear of catching Covid-19 and a need to protect myself and others.”

In his ruling, the employment judge Mark Leach said he accepted the woman had a genuine fear but he did not believe it met the criteria for a “philosophical belief” that would be protected under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.

He said: “I do not find that the claimant’s fear amounts to a belief. Rather, it is a reaction to a threat of physical harm and the need to take steps to avoid or reduce that threat. Most (if not all) people instinctively react to perceived or real threats of physical harm in one way or another.

“It can also be described as a widely held opinion based on the present state of information available that taking certain steps – for example, attending a crowded place during the height of the current pandemic – would increase the risk of contracting Covid-19 and may therefore be dangerous.

“Few people may argue against that. However, a fear of physical harm and views about how best to reduce or avoid a risk of physical harm is not a belief for the purposes of section 10.”

Leach added: “Fears about the harm being caused by Covid-19 are weighty and substantial. They are certainly not minor or trivial. They are about also aspects of human life and behaviour.”