Thursday, March 10, 2022

Government Must Act In Response To Heart-breaking, Compelling Evidence On FASD

Thursday, 10 March 2022, 1:03 pm
Press Release: Health Coalition Aotearoa

Statement on behalf of Roopuu Apaarangi Waipiro

Alcohol harm reduction experts are calling on the Government to urgently act on recommendations from nine witnesses who have detailed the multiple, serious and systemic failures by successive Governments to address the unequal harms to Māori from the lifelong disability of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).

The witnesses will be heard by the Waitangi Tribunal on Monday and Tuesday, in support of a claim (WAI2624) submitted by Raawiri (David) Ratuu (Ngaati te Ata Waiohua, Waikato-Tainui, Ngaati Maniapoto) of Kookiri ki Taamakimakaurau Trust and member of The Health Coalition Aotearoa’s Roopuu Apaarangi Waipiro, Alcohol Expert Panel.

First, caregivers will describe the devastating, life-changing and on-going challenges and distress they face raising their loved ones with FASD, often with little to no Government support. Clinical practitioners and researchers will then present compelling evidence on the Crown’s breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by failing to respond to the serious harm of FASD. This includes failures to measure the prevalence of FASD as well as providing specific and adequate funding for diagnosis and wrap-around disability support services for individuals and whānau.

Fellow Health Coalition Aotearoa Panel member and clinical neuropsychologist, Dr Valerie McGinn, is one of the witnesses presenting evidence next week. She says "the evidence to be presented will be upsetting to many - the implications of alcohol exposure in pregnancy have devastating, intergenerational effects. With an estimated one-half of all pregnancies being exposed to alcohol, as many as 1800 or more babies are born with FASD in our country each year. The damage to the brain from prenatal alcohol exposure leads to outcomes such as low educational achievement, mental health and substance abuse issues, early contact with the justice system, benefit dependence and premature death - including through suicide. With the right funding and support, these outcomes can be greatly reduced and persons with FASD and their whānau can thrive. FASD must be recognised as a stand-alone disability, eligible for disability support services. Other countries are leading the way, and Aotearoa New Zealand must follow suit."

"The Waitangi Tribunal claim and witnesses present clear solutions for change. Proper regulation of alcohol is also imperative to reduce the number of babies born with FASD each year. Weak regulation has resulted in the oversaturation of alcohol outlets across many communities, low alcohol prices, and sophisticated advertising to target young people and those of child-bearing age" says Panel member Dr Nicki Jackson.

"The persistent lack of regulation of alcohol has enormous, lifelong consequences. Our pro-drinking environment drives inequities in alcohol use and harm, including the lifelong disability of FASD. We, as the Health Coalition Aotearoa Alcohol Expert Panel, urge the Government to implement effective regulation of our most harmful drug. They have a duty to create healthy environments that support alcohol-free pregnancies. We want every child to have the opportunity to reach their full potential", ends Dr Nicki Jackson.

SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2006/12/alcoholism-is-colonialism.html

WHO Issues New Guidelines On Abortion To Help Deliver Lifesaving Care

Thursday, 10 March 2022,
Press Release: UN News

New guidelines on abortion are now available from the World Health Organization (WHO), in a bid to prevent more than 25 million unsafe terminations that happen each year.

Craig Lissner, the UN health agency’s acting director for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, said on Wednesday’s launch, that “being able to obtain a safe abortion is a crucial part of healthcare”.

“Nearly every death and injury that results from unsafe abortion is entirely preventable,” he insisted.

“That’s why we recommend women and girls can access abortion and family planning, when they need them.”

50+ recommendations

To keep women and girls safe, WHO has released more than 50 recommendations spanning clinical practice, health service delivery, and legal and policy interventions to support quality abortion care.

The medical procedure is “simple and extremely safe” when it is carried out using a method recommended by WHO, the UN agency said.

But worldwide, only around half of all abortions take place safely, causing around 39,000 deaths every year and resulting in millions more women hospitalized with complications.

Most of these deaths are concentrated in lower-income countries, said WHO, with over 60 percent in Africa and 30 percent in Asia – and they’re impacting the most vulnerable.

The new guidelines include recommendations on many simple primary care level interventions that improve the quality of abortion care provided.

These include task sharing by a wider range of health workers; ensuring access to medical abortion pills - which mean more women can obtain safe abortion services - and making sure that accurate information on care is available to all.

For the first time, the guidelines also include best practices for telemedicine, which helped support access to abortion and family planning services in many countries, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Safer access

Alongside the clinical and service delivery recommendations, the guidelines recommend removing medically unnecessary policy barriers to safe abortion, such as criminalization, mandatory waiting times; the requirement that approval must be given by other family members, or institutions; and limits on when during pregnancy, an abortion can take place.

Such barriers can lead to critical delays in accessing treatment and put women and girls at greater risk of unsafe abortion, stigmatization, and health complications, while increasing disruptions to education and their ability to work.

Abortion still criminalized

While most countries permit abortion under specified circumstances, about 20 countries provide no legal grounds whatsoever for abortion.

More than three quarters of all countries have legal penalties for abortion, which can include lengthy prison sentences or heavy fines for people having or assisting with the procedure.

“It’s vital that an abortion is safe in medical terms”, said Dr. Bela Ganatra, Head of WHO’s Prevention of Unsafe Abortion Unit.

“But that’s not enough on its own. As with any other health services, abortion care needs to respect the decisions and needs of women and girls, ensuring that they are treated with dignity and without stigma or judgement. No one should be exposed to abuse or harms like being reported to the police or put in jail because they have sought or provided abortion care."

Driven underground

Evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions that take place. In fact, restrictions are more likely to drive women and girls towards unsafe procedures.

In countries where abortion is most restricted, only 1 in 4 abortions are safe, compared to a positive safety record for nearly 9 in 10 in countries where the procedure is broadly legal.

“The evidence is clear – if you want to prevent unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions, you need to provide women and girls with a comprehensive package of sexuality education, accurate family planning information and services, and access to quality abortion care,” Dr. Ganatra added.

Why Kiwi Families Need Social Insurance

Article: Helen Clark Foundation

If you or your partner lost their job, how long could you last before you had to move house?

Many of our families are much more financially fragile than we like to think.

In New Zealand in the 1970s the cost of buying a house was usually double or at most triple an individual salary. Now, in major centres like Auckland, it is nine times the average salary and rising. The rental market is similarly a nightmare, though it attracts less political attention.

How have families coped with this kind of cost increase without a comparable wage increase? How on earth have we kept our heads above water?

This is not just an issue in New Zealand. In the USA, Elizabeth Warren found back in 2004 that an American two-income family earns 75% more money than its single-income counterpart of a generation ago, but has 25% less discretionary income to cover living costs. This is largely because major fixed expenses like housing have increased so much in price, without any correlating increase to wages.

One key answer for many families privileged enough to have a choice (single parents frequently face outright housing poverty) has been to send both parents to work. The percentage of mothers who had pre-school children and were in paid employment rose from 21% in 1976 to 32% in 1986. This trend has continued and intensified. A Statistics New Zealand report from 2015 put it bluntly:

“[g]ains in the labour force participation of women aged 25–49 years over the last 20 years have been largely driven by the increased participation of mothers in the labour market.”

So what does this mean for family financial stability?

A generation or two ago, in a family privileged enough to have two healthy parents, a stay at home parent operated like a family insurance policy. If a major event like redundancy or chronic illness hit the breadwinner, the other parent could make up the difference by going to work. Many of us have stories of this happening in our own families – my grandmother’s income from nursing allowed her family to pay school fees which would have been unaffordable on my grandfather’s teacher salary alone. If he had become ill, the kids would have had to change school but the family would not have lost their house.

Very few two parent families have this kind of insurance policy anymore. Both parents earnings are sunk into essential expenses, like paying off the mortgage or rent. And, if both pay cheques are used for core household expenses, now two breadwinners means twice the risk of redundancy or chronic illness compared to a single income family in the 1960s. If either of you lose income, your family’s economic security can disappear very quickly. This income drop is sharper and lasts for longer in NZ than many other comparable countries.

Redundancy is both more common and a bigger existential threat to families than it used to be.

The recently announced scheme for social unemployment insurance (SUI) is an exciting, transformational policy which helps to address this nail biting anxiety about money that many families experience in Aotearoa today. It gives you the one thing you need in a family crisis – time. It lets you keep your head above water while you find a new job.

Under the scheme those who lose their job would be given four weeks notice and a four-week payment at 80 per cent of their salary. If they could not find more work they would get up to 80 per cent of their usual income for another six months. This would be capped at the ACC rate – currently $1820 a week.

The SUI concept comes from Nordic social democracy, and, like their approach to poverty alleviation, works closely with a sophisticated understanding of an active labour market policy that not only allows the market to work well with individuals and firms upskilling and reshaping, but also tackles poverty by ensuring that people are upskilled and in work that pays.

It is not a magic bean which will cure all social ills in New Zealand. Active labour market policies in respect to retraining and childcare must go alongside it, as well as good systems to connect displaced workers to these supports. But as a policy it promises to give many people a bigger and more secure stake in society, and that is profoundly worth having.

This piece was originally published by the NZ Herald.

Friday, 4 February 2022

NZ

How protesters demanding ‘freedom’ from COVID restrictions ignore the way liberty really works

Wednesday, 9 March 2022
Article: The Conversation

Like the many similar movements against vaccine mandates and other pandemic restrictions around the world, New Zealand’s protests have expressed a unifying concern with personal freedoms.

One of the highest-profile groups at the occupation of parliament grounds in Wellington was “Voices for Freedom”. The occupation itself began with a “freedom convoy”, and many of the signs and placards around the makeshift camp made “freedom” their focus.

And while that particular protest ended in chaos, it seems likely the various movements behind it will continue to make “freedom” their rallying cry.

The extent to which personal freedoms are limited as part of living in a functioning society is ultimately a moral concern about the role of government. But this also requires a clear understanding of the nature of freedom in the first place, and what it means to be a free person in a free society.

At the heart of this lies the distinction between a narrow conception of freedom known as “negative liberty” and the wider concept of “positive liberty”. The former, seemingly preferred by the protesters, implies a freedom from imposed restrictions on people’s behaviour – such as lockdowns and vaccine passes or mandates.

The counter-argument is that reasonable restrictions, if justified to prevent significant harm from COVID-19, actually increase overall freedom. In that sense, the freedom to behave in certain ways becomes a “positive liberty”.

Negative liberty: a sign erected by protesters camped outside parliament buildings. GettyImages

Understanding liberty

Drawing on a long intellectual tradition, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin defined the two forms of liberty in an influential 1958 lecture at Oxford University.

Negative liberty, he said, means the absence of external obstacles or constraints, such as coercive interference by governments.

By contrast, positive liberty means the ability to do the things you want to do. It is associated with self-realisation or self-determination – being in control of one’s own destiny. The protest slogan “my body, my choice”, for instance, is an appeal to individual negative liberty – freedom from mandates and restrictions.

But it’s not possible to simultaneously maximise both negative and positive liberty. There are inevitably trade-offs. If the protesters had their way, New Zealanders would have more negative liberty but less positive liberty. Overall, we argue, people would be less free.

Nearly all laws restrict negative liberty, but their effect on positive liberty varies dramatically. For example, laws prohibiting theft restrict negative liberty — they restrict people’s freedom to steal with impunity.

But do such restrictions make you feel un-free? Quite the contrary, laws against theft increase positive liberty. They allow us to feel more secure, and because we don’t have to keep a constant eye on our property, we can do other things.

Positive and negative liberty: Isaiah Berlin (standing) at a music festival in Britain in 1959. GettyImages

Justified limits on liberty

Thinking of freedom only through a lens of negative liberty involves a critical problem – it ignores the fact that our actions affect other people: the freedom to drink and drive restricts other people’s ability to use the streets safely; the freedom to smoke in public places exposes others to the potential harms of secondhand fumes.

In general, the choices we make – even concerning our own bodies and what we choose to consume – have moral implications for how and where we can participate in society. Giving people freedom to visit certain places while unvaccinated against COVID-19 restricts other people’s ability to visit those places safely.

Vaccinated New Zealanders currently enjoy high levels of positive liberty. Life is nearly normal. Crucially, though, this freedom depends on policies designed to reduce the threat of the disease – high rates of vaccination, vaccine certificates and mandates for certain key roles, masks and temporary restrictions on large gatherings to reduce the spread.

Such policies constitute a slight loss of negative liberty. Without these policies, however, positive liberty would be much reduced. New Zealanders could not visit places like gyms, pools, restaurants and shops without fear of catching a potentially deadly disease.

New Zealand has enjoyed more freedom over the past two years than nearly anywhere else, but it has only been possible through restrictions on negative liberty to reduce the risk of COVID-19.

Restriction and risk

Isaiah Berlin was rightly concerned about the potential slippery slope towards totalitarian control inherent in appeals to positive freedom, as witnessed in the USSR where severe restrictions on speech, movement, assembly, literary expression and much else were imposed in the name of “freedom” (namely the freedom to be a good Soviet).

But slippery slopes can be resisted and the risk here seems slight. For COVID policies that restrict negative liberty to enhance overall freedom, they must be necessary to promote positive liberty, responsive to the evidence, and proportional to the threat.

One sign we are not on a slippery slope to totalitarianism: COVID restrictions change with, and are proportional to, the risk. Last year, when New Zealand had zero COVID-19 cases, lockdowns ended and restrictions were few; when the threat increased, restrictions did, proportionally.

Restrictions on negative liberty should be adopted with care and subject to continual review. All citizens, protesters included, are right to value freedom and to be wary of heavy-handed, top-down control.

But that is not the same as calling for an end to COVID-19 rules because such rules limit freedom. A clearer understanding of positive liberty allows us to see that restrictions designed to protect us from COVID-19 actually enhance our overall freedom.

'Immigration to Canada' trends on Twitter as South Korea elects president 'K-Trump'

Election day in South Korea looked a lot like election day in the United States in 2016 when Donald Trump became president.

South Korea's new president-elect Yoon Suk Yeol (C) of the main opposition People Power Party gestures to his supporters as he is congratulated outside the party headquarters in Seoul on March 10, 2022.

Lynn Chaya National Post

The internet was abuzz with pleas to immigrate to Canada after conservative candidate Yoon Suk-yeol, dubbed K-Trump , was elected the new president of South Korea on Thursday.

The newly elected president led many Koreans to flood Twitter with almost 16,000 “immigration to Canada” tweets, making it a trending topic throughout the day.

Former top prosecutor Suk-yeol beat liberal ruling party candidate Lee Jae-myung by less than one per cent, making it one of the closest presidential elections in recent history.

Suk-yeol drew criticism throughout his campaign for making outlandish statements.

In July 2021, he lambasted South Korea’s outgoing president Moon Jae-in’s policy to promote better work-life balance that limits workers to 52-hour work weeks — 40 hours a week, plus another 12 hours of overtime.

“Workers should be allowed to work 120 hours a week and then take a good rest,” said Suk-yeol, adding the system should allow for more flexibility for those who need to work longer hours during peak periods.

A month later, he stated that low-income individuals should have a choice of eating foods that don’t meet legal standards, as long as the food doesn’t kill them.

“Poor people should be allowed to choose food below (certain quality standards) to eat at lower prices … unless it makes you sick and die,” he said in an interview critiquing excessive food regulations in reference to Milton Friedman’s book, “Free to Choose: A Personal Statement.”

“He became the conservatives’ “icon” because he was “seen as the best person to beat the Democratic Party candidate, despite his lack of political leadership experience,” Stanford sociology professor Gi-Wook Shin told AFP .

“That does not bode well for Korean democracy as we may expect further polarization,” he added.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau congratulated South Korea’s new president on his victory, despite Suk-yeol’s questionable policies.

SAY NO TO CENSORSHIP!
EU tells Google to delist Russian state media websites from search

Mariella Moon 6 hrs ago

The European Commission has sent Google a request to remove Russian state media results for searches performed in countries within the EU. As The Washington Post reports, Google has uploaded a letter from EU officials to a database of government requests. In it, the officials explain how the commission's official order to ban the broadcast of RT and Sputnik in the European Union also applies to search engines and internet companies in general.

If you'll recall, the commission issued a ban on the state media outlets a few days after Russia's invasion of Ukraine began. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, said back then that by doing so, the outlets "will no longer be able to spread their lies to justify Putin's war." While it wasn't quite clear how the order applies to internet companies, Facebook, Twitter and TikTok promptly restricted access to RT and Sputnik across Europe. Google also announced its own restrictions, but only for the outlets' YouTube channels.

In the letter Google has uploaded, officials explained that search engines play a major role in disseminating content and that if the company doesn't delist the outlets, it would facilitate the public's access to them. Part of the letter reads:

"The activity of search engines plays a decisive role in the overall dissemination of content in that it renders the latter accessible to any internet user making a search on the basis of the content indication or related terms, including to internet users who otherwise would not have found the web page on which that content is published...Consequently, if search engines such as Google did not delist RT and Sputnik, they would facilitate the public's access to the content of RT and Sputnik, or contribute to such access.

It follows from the foregoing that by virtue of the Regulation, providers of Internet search services must make sure that i) any link to the Internet sites of RT and Sputnik and ii) any content of RT and Sputnik, including short textual descriptions, visual elements and links to the corresponding websites do not appear in the search results delivered to users located in the EU."

Google didn't return The Post's request for comment, but the publication says a search conducted within the EU didn't bring up links for "Russia Today." RT links still showed up for us, however, when we conducted searches using Google Austria and France.

The letter also said that the order applies to "posts made by individuals that reproduce the content of RT and Sputnik" — for example, screenshots of articles from those outlets — and that social networks must delete those posts if they get published. That could create a deluge of additional work for social media websites already struggling to moderate content posted by their users. According to The Post, though, the actual sanctions law doesn't define the order in the way that's written in the letter, so the officials' interpretation could be challenged in court.

Chief of defence staff and Belarus opposition leader attend Ottawa defence conference

OTTAWA — Gen. Wayne Eyre, chief of the defence staff, will speak today at an international defence conference in Ottawa that Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, Belarus's exiled opposition leader, will also address.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Tsikhanouskaya claimed a first-round victory over Alexander Lukashenko in the 2020 Belarusian presidential election after she stood in the place of her husband, who had been detained.

She disputed the eventual election of Lukashenko, who is a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has allowed Belarus to be a staging post for Putin's invasion of Ukraine, letting Russian troops amass along the border.

The Ottawa Conference is to be attended by defence figures from Canada and key allies, including the United Kingdom's vice-chief of the defence staff, Admiral Tim Fraser.

The conference will look at the current state of international security, including in Ukraine.

Defence Minister Anita Anand will attend the conference on Friday.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 10, 2022.

The Canadian Press

GOP Rep. Madison Cawthorn called Zelenskyy a 'thug' and said the Ukrainian government is 'evil'
Oma Seddiq

Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina in the House chamber ahead of the State of the Union address on March 1, 2022. Saul Loeb - Pool/Getty Images

GOP Rep. Madison Cawthorn called the President Zelenskyy a "thug" during a townhall last week.
"Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and it is incredibly evil," he said.
Cawthorn on Thursday condemned Putin's actions and said propaganda "is being used to entice America into another war."

Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a "thug" and Ukraine's government "incredibly corrupt" and "incredibly evil" during a townhall in his homestate last Saturday.

The freshman Republican lawmaker made the comments in Asheville, North Carolina. They were first reported in a Wall Street Journal opinion column on Wednesday. Local television station WRAL published a video of Cawthorn's remarks on Thursday.

"Remember that Zelenskyy is a thug," Cawthorn said. "Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and it is incredibly evil and it has been pushing woke ideologies."

Cawthorn's comments are at odds with prominent members of his party, who have decried Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine and expressed support for Zelenskyy. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy during a press conference on Wednesday called Putin "evil" and a "dictator." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last week called Putin a "ruthless thug."

A spokesperson for Cawthorn told Insider on Thursday that the lawmaker "supports Ukraine and the Ukrainian President's efforts to defend their country against Russian aggression, but does not want America drawn into another conflict through emotional manipulation."

"The Congressman was expressing his displeasure at how foreign leaders, including Zelensky, had recently used false propaganda to entice America into becoming involved in an overseas conflict," the spokesperson said, pointing to Cawthorn's tweet on Thursday.

"Propaganda is being used to entice America into another war," Madison tweeted, along with a link to a Substack article about propaganda and misinformation in the Russian-Ukrainian war. "I do not want Americans dying because emotions pushed us into a conflict."

"The actions of Putin and Russia are disgusting. But leaders, including Zelensky, should NOT push misinformation on America," Madison wrote in a follow-up tweet. "I am praying for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. Pray also we are not drawn into conflict based on foreign leaders pushing misinformation."

Some of Ukraine's official accounts have posted questionable and unverified information, according to the New York Times, but it's been mostly focused on "heroes and martyrs" in the war. Those claims also pale in comparison to the disinformation being spread by Russia, the Times reported.

The United States has provided arms to Ukraine to fight Russia, but no American forces are engaged in the conflict. President Joe Biden has consistently made clear that there are no plans to deploy US troops to the war.

Chelsea now owned by the UK government

European football champions Chelsea are now effectively controlled by the British government after sanctions were imposed against Russian owner Roman Abramovich.

Abramovich, who had been under scrutiny following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, had announced he was selling the Premier League club last week.

Stamford Bridge Photo: PHOTOSPORT

That process is now on hold, leaving the west London club, ranked by Forbes as the seventh most valuable in world soccer at $4.7 billion, in a state of limbo, operating under a special government licence.

The Russian bought the club in 2003 for a reported $204 million and his investment resulted in the most successful era in their history as they won five Premier League titles, five FA Cups and the Champions League twice.

His purchase of the club helped transform the landscape of English football with Chelsea breaking the stranglehold of Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool.

Abramovich had funded Chelsea via 1.5 billion pounds in total loans through Fordstam Limited, the entity through which he owns the club.

In their most recent accounts in December, Chelsea, who reported post-tax losses of $280 million for the year ended June 30 2021, said they were "reliant on Fordstam Limited for its continued financial support".

Yet now there is a huge question mark over the club's future.

Chelsea, the Premier League and a spokesperson for Abramovich did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A number of potential new owners had emerged in the past week, including several American sports executives, but there is now a block on any sale.

A spokesperson for Britain' Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that block could be lifted in the future if another licence is agreed to.

"We would have to grant a further licence. I think it is fair to say the government is open to the sale of the club, but ... currently, it would require another licence and that would require a further conversation with the Treasury (finance ministry)," he told reporters.

Roman Abramovich Photo: AFP

"The principle has been to mitigate the impact on fans ..., these measures are designed to punish those close to (Russian President Vladimir) Putin."

A source close to Chelsea told Reuters that the expectation within the club was that a deal would be done "sooner rather than later".

New York investment bank Raine has been handling the sale and potential buyers will now have to wait to see whether a licence allowing a sale is granted and how any eventual legal action from Abramovich proceeds.

Chelsea are now operating under a special government licence, which allows some exemptions to the asset freeze restrictions, in order to allow the club to fulfil their fixtures.

Chelsea, who are third in the Premier League and in the last 16 of the Champions League, will be able to play their games and pay their players while broadcasters will be permitted to show their matches on television.

Only fans who have already purchased tickets or who have season tickets will be allowed to attend matches, the government said, while no new merchandising sales will be permitted.

The club shop has put up a notice saying it is closed due to the latest government announcement.

The club will not be able to enter into transfer deals for new players or receive money for selling existing players -- effectively a transfer ban.

Stamford Bridge Photo: PHOTOSPORT

However the club will be able to continue paying the wages of all employees, including their playing and coaching staff.

British government Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said the moves were aimed at "depriving Abramovich of benefiting from his ownership of the club".

"I know this brings some uncertainty, but the Government will work with the league and clubs to keep football being played while ensuring sanctions hit those intended," Dorries said in a statement.

"Football clubs are cultural assets and the bedrock of our communities. We're committed to protecting them."

Fans group, the Chelsea Supporters Trust, urged the government to involve fans in future decisions over their club.

"The CST notes with concern the Government's statement regarding the owner. Supporters must be involved in any conversation regarding ongoing impacts on the club and its global fan base," it said in a statement.

"The CST implores the Government to conduct a swift process to minimise the uncertainty over Chelsea's future, for supporters and for supporters to be given a golden share as part of a sale of the club."

-Reuters

Three Mobile suspends £40m Chelsea sponsorship amid Abramovich sanction

BY:LEAH MONTEBELLO

Mobile giant Three has suspended its £40m sponsorship of Chelsea Football Club following the UK’s sanction of owner Roman Abramovich this morning.

A Three spokesperson said this afternoon: “In light of the government’s recently announced sanctions, we have requested Chelsea Football Club temporarily suspend our sponsorship of the club, including the removal of our brand from shirts and around the stadium until further notice.

“We recognise that this decision will impact the many Chelsea fans who follow their team passionately. However, we feel that given the circumstances, and the Government sanction that is in place, it is the right thing to do.

“As a mobile network, the best way we can support the people of Ukraine is to ensure refugees arriving in the UK from the conflict and customers currently in Ukraine can stay connected to the people who matter to them. Therefore, we are offering connectivity packages to all Ukrainians arriving in the UK, and those in Ukraine.”

It comes after Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries announced on Twitter that the Russian oligarch had been added to the sanction list following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

She said Vladimir Putin’s attacks on Ukraine involved “new levels of evil by the hour” and comes alongside further government sanctions “against individuals linked to the Russian Government”.

Dorries wrote on Twitter: “Our priority is to hold those who have enabled the Putin regime to account.”

“Today’s sanctions obviously have a direct impact on Chelsea & its fans. We have been working hard to ensure the club & the national game are not unnecessarily harmed by these important sanctions.

“To ensure the club can continue to compete and operate we are issuing a special licence that will allow fixtures to be fulfilled, staff to be paid and existing ticket holders to attend matches while, crucially, depriving Abramovich of benefiting from his ownership of the club.

“I know this brings some uncertainty, but the Government will work with the league & clubs to keep football being played while ensuring sanctions hit those intended. Football clubs are cultural assets and the bedrock of our communities. We’re committed to protecting them.”

From a commercial perspective, it is not just Three that Chelsea have to worry about.

Nike also have a £55m kit deal with the football club, as well as the car manufacturer, Hyundai, and the watchmaker, Hublot.

Nike, Hyundai and Hublot have been contacted for comment by City A.M. about their next steps.

Exclusive-EU to sanction more Russian oligarchs, Belarus banks over Ukraine invasion -sources

Tue, March 8, 2022
By Francesco Guarascio, Jan Strupczewski and John Chalmers

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Commission has prepared a new package of sanctions against Russia and Belarus over the invasion of Ukraine that will hit additional Russian oligarchs and politicians and three Belarusian banks, three sources told Reuters on Tuesday.

The draft sanctions were adopted by the EU executive on Tuesday morning and will be discussed by EU ambassadors at a meeting starting at 1400 GMT, one source said.

The draft package will ban three Belarusian banks from the SWIFT banking system and add several more oligarchs and Russian lawmakers to the EU blacklist, the sources told Reuters.

The package also bans exports from the EU of naval equipment and software to Russia and provides guidance on the monitoring of cryptocurrencies to avoid their use to circumvent EU sanctions, the sources said.

Moscow describes its actions in Ukraine as a "special operation" to disarm its neighbour and arrest leaders it calls "neo-Nazis". Ukraine and its Western allies call this a baseless pretext for an invasion to conquer a country of 44 million people.

EU diplomats have so far approved sanctions proposed by the EU Commission against Russia and Belarus without any changes.

The EU has already excluded seven Russian banks from SWIFT, but had not included Belarusian banks.

The sources declined to name the new lenders to be sanctioned.

One source said the package also listed oligarchs and members of Russia's Federation Council, which is the upper house of the Russian Parliament.

So far EU sanctions have hit hundreds of members of the lower house, the Duma, who voted in favour of Russia's recognition of the self-proclaimed people's republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.

The EU will also expand its ban on EU exports of advanced technology to Russia, mostly supporting the ban on the export of maritime technology, the sources said.

The ban on the export of naval equipment and software to Russia is mainly meant to hit its shipping sector, one source said.

(Reporting by Francesco Guarascio @fraguarascio, Jan Strupczewski and John Chalmers; Editing by Catherine Evans and Nick Macfie)

3 Russian billionaires resign from board of $22 billion investment firm LetterOne after it locked out 2 Russian oligarchs over the invasion of Ukraine

Kate Duffy
Tue, March 8, 2022

In this article:

German Khan, Alexei Kuzmichev, and Andrei Kosogov have left the investment firm LetterOne.

They weren't sanctioned but thought stepping down was in the company's interests, LetterOne said.

It comes less than a week after sanctioned oligarchs Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven left the firm.

Three Russian billionaires have resigned from the board of a $22 billion investment firm amid their country's ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

It comes after London-based LetterOne froze out Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, who are subject to Western sanctions, blocking access to their buildings last week and forbidding them to talk to employees.

German Khan, Alexei Kuzmichev, and Andrei Kosogov — who are not subject to any sanctions — all stepped down from their positions with the company on Monday.

"None of these three individuals has been sanctioned, but they believe that this is the right thing to do in the long-term interests of LetterOne, its employees, and the many jobs it supports in its portfolio companies," the firm said in a statement sent to Insider.

Khan, 60, who helped to found LetterOne and is a partner in Alfa Group, said in the statement that he supported the board's actions and called for an end to the war.

"The majority of LetterOne founders have deep roots in Ukraine, and the destruction of the cities where I spent my childhood and which are home to the graves of our ancestors is heartbreaking," said Khan, who has a net worth of almost $6.9 billion, according to a Bloomberg estimate.

Kuzmichev, 59, was a cofounder of Alfa-Bank, the biggest private bank in Russia, and has a net worth of about $5.2 billion, according to Bloomberg. Kosogov, 60, is a member of Alfa Group's board and is valued at $1.2 billion, according to Forbes' estimates.

LetterOne also said in Monday's statement that Fridman and Aven, who left the company's board on Wednesday, had their shares in the firm "frozen indefinitely" and can't receive dividends or other financial funds from LetterOne.

Mervyn Davies, the chairman who is now in charge of LetterOne, told the Financial Times that they were locked out of the offices, blocked from accessing documents, and banned from speaking with employees.

LetterOne is set to donate $150 million to help people affected by the war in Ukraine, and shareholders have agreed that all dividends will go toward relief efforts, the company's statement said.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment