William Brown Street first in Liverpool to have plaque explaining slavery links

Tuesday 5 April 2022, 

The bronze sign on William Brown Street explains the history behind its name.

Credit: PA images

A historic street in Liverpool is the first in the city to have a plaque installed which explains its links with slave trade in Britain.

William Brown Street, named after cotton trader and slave owner, will be one of a series of streets to get a bronze plaque.

Liverpool grew immensely wealthy from slave trade in the 19th century, becoming the most important port in Europe.

The signs are named after Eric Scott Lynch, the late activist and historian who spent his life highlighting the area's links with the slave economy.

The plaque tells the history of William Brown, a slaver who lived in Liverpool.

Credit: PA images

It reads: “Liverpool’s Central Library and World Museum have their origins in wealth accrued through slavery.

“William Brown became one of the main importers of slave-produced cotton into Liverpool.

“The Brown family also owned many enslaved people on their plantations in the United States. William Brown Street was named after him for funding these buildings.”

The son of Eric Lynch, Andrew Lynch, attended the unveiling on Tuesday, 5 April.

Liverpool streets linked to slavery may soon be given plaques

Black Voices In Conversation: Irene Afful

Jahmal Willams-Thomas: How racism affected people in Manchester in the 1960s

Andrew said: “These plaques stand testament to the educational work that my father Eric Scott Lynch carried out.

“Over many years, he strove to give the people of Liverpool a deeper understanding of the central role the city played in shaping the modern world.

“The enormous wealth generated by slavery and imperial interests built the city into a major trade hub and financed many of the industries that were to become the cornerstone of the industrial revolution.

“This reminds us that Liverpool is truly a world city, with the labour of Africans and people of African descent being a key part of our story.”

Andrew Lynch (2nd left) during the unveiling of the bronze plaque on William Brown Street, Liverpool.

Credit: PA images

Mayor of Liverpool Joanne Anderson said the plaque was a “milestone moment” and has pledged to be "open and transparent about this city’s role in the transatlantic slave trade".

She said: “This understanding of our past is key, and only when we fully acknowledge and accept it, can we move forward.”

The city is set to host a series of events including a music day and conference as part of Liverpool Against Racism.

The death of George Floyd in May 2020 sparked debate on Britain’s historic links with the slave trade.

Lancashire doctor recalls vivid memories of the Falklands War in 1982

Tuesday 5 April 2022
Paul Crone
Reporter, ITV Granada Reports


The sinking of the Liverpool-registered ship the Atlantic Conveyor is often a forgotten casualty of the Falklands War in 1982.

A dozen crew members died aboard the Conveyor when it was struck by Argentinian Exocet missiles in the South Atlantic.

Struck by two enemy missiles during the Falklands War, 12 crew members died on board the Atlantic Conveyor.Credit: Dr Gordon Brooks

But the Conveyor was attacked on the same day as HMS Coventry, so news of the merchant vessel almost went unreported.

On board the Conveyor was the ship's Chief Medical Officer Dr Gordon Brooks, who was brought up in Blackpool.

Also on board a precious cargo of Wessex helicopters, Harrier Jump jets and supplies for the British Task Force once it had landed on the Falkland Islands. A prize target for the enemy.

And on 25 May, 1982 the Atlantic Conveyor was struck by two air-launched Exocet missiles turning the ship into giant fireball.

Dr Gordon Brooks did what he could to save lives. But those trapped in the bow of the Conveyor had no hope of surviving the blasts and subsequent fires.

Eventually the order to abandon ship was given and Gordon managed to clamber down the ship's ladders and jump into the icy cold South Atlantic waters.

He eventually made it to a life raft and was picked up by another ship from the Task Force.

As for the Atlantic Conveyor, she was put under tow, but had been fatally injured by the Exocet missiles and after a few days, she split in two and sank.

Veterans remember Falklands War on 40th anniversary

The Atlantic Conveyor was fatally damaged by enemy Exocet missiles.

Credit: Dr Gordon Brooks

Dr Gordon Brooks returned home safely to his family, and wrongly feels he could have done more on board the Conveyor to help other crew members after the attack.

He says: "I was the medic, I was supposed to help people, and save them. And even though I did my very, very best, I failed.

"And I think that is the thing that drove me from then on to prove to myself that I was good at something."

Gordon's story is part of three special films on Granada Reports this week to mark the 40th anniversary of the start of the Falklands War in 1982.

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M IN ACTION

GM and Honda expand alliance to produce millions of EVs


The Ultium platform is the foundation of GM's EV strategy, the company says, including battery cells, modules and pack, plus drive units containing electric motors and integrated power electronics.
File Photo by Brian Kersey/UPI | License Photo


April 5 (UPI) -- General Motors and Honda Motor Co., Ltd. on Tuesday said they will start producing millions of affordable electric vehicles worldwide starting in 2027.

In a joint statement, the companies said the new vehicles will be powered by Ultium battery technology and that they will continue their work on EV battery technology collaboration.

The Ultium platform is the foundation of GM's EV strategy, the company has said, including the battery cells, modules and pack, plus drive units containing electric motors and integrated power electronics.

"GM and Honda will share our best technology, design and manufacturing strategies to deliver affordable and desirable EVs on a global scale, including our key markets in North America, South America and China," said Mary Barra, GM chair and CEO.

RELATED GM, Honda sign deal to form North American alliance


The plans include a new all-electric vehicle for North America positioned at a price point "lower than the upcoming Chevrolet Equinox EV," said Doug Parks, GM's executive vice president for global product development, purchasing and supply chain.

The price of the vehicles is expected to fall below $30,000, according to Ken Morris, GM's executive vice president of electric, autonomous and fuel cell programs who spoke with reporters on Tuesday.

"Honda is committed to reaching our goal of carbon neutrality on a global basis by 2050, which requires driving down the cost of electric vehicles to make EV ownership possible for the greatest number of customers," said Toshihiro Mibe, Honda president & CEO. He added that the companies "successful technology collaboration" would dramatically increase sales of electric vehicles.

In 2020, GM and Honda announced plans to codevelop two EVs. One of them is the Honda Prologue, expected to be launched in early 2024.

GM and Honda have worked together on various collaborations for more than 20 years, including the development of fuel cells, batteries and the Cruise Origin shared autonomous vehicle.

RELATED GM, Honda working together on $2.7B plan to build self-driving cars

The companies also began working together in 2018 to build an autonomous vehicle.

Meanwhile, CNET in January said 2022 will be a record year for launches of electric vehicles.

Report: Saudi-Led Coalition Dropped Over 3mln Cluster Bombs on Yemen Since 2015

TEHRAN (FNA)- The director general of the Yemen Executive Mine Action Centre (YEMAC) announced the Saudi-led military coalition has dropped more than 3 million cluster bombs on Yemen since the beginning of the devastating war in March 2015.

Speaking at a ceremony in the Yemeni capital city of Sana’a on the occasion of the International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action, Brigadier General Ali Safra said cluster munitions have been collected in 15 provinces and 70 districts, stressing that the Yemenis have detected 15 types of them used in air raids, presstv reported.

Safra explained that there have been 42 cluster bomb casualties across Yemen in the month of March and roughly 220 victims in the Western coastal province of Hudaydah since Saudi-backed mercenaries withdrew from it last November.

He added that as of March 30, 2022, the civilian death toll as a result of the coalition’s use of cluster bombs amounted to 3,921, including 119 children and 39 women, while 2,884 civilians have been wounded, including 257 children and 76 women.

The YEMAC head also lambasted attempts by certain international organizations to underreport the number of cluster bomb victims in Yemen, stating that such ploys are meant to vindicate the Saudi-led coalition and distort facts.

Cluster bombs are banned under the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), an international treaty that addresses the humanitarian consequences and unacceptable harm caused to civilians by cluster munitions through a categorical prohibition and a framework for action.

Saudi Arabia launched the devastating war against Yemen in March 2015 in collaboration with a number of its allies and with arms and logistics support from the US and several Western states.

The objective was to bring back to power the former Riyadh-backed regime and crush the Ansarullah resistance movement, which has been running state affairs in the absence of an effective government in Yemen.

The war has stopped well short of all of its goals, despite killing hundreds of thousands of Yemenis and turning the entire country into the scene of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

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

Pakistan in Crisis After PM Imran Khan Dissolved Parliament & Accused U.S. of Plotting Regime Change

STORY

APRIL 05, 2022

GUESTS
Munizae Jahangir
Pakistani writer and journalist, editor-in-chief of Voicepk.net and a council member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

LINKS
Munizae Jahangir on Twitter
Voicepk.net
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

Pakistan is facing a constitutional crisis after Prime Minister Imran Khan dissolved the country’s National Assembly and called for new elections in an effort to block an attempt to remove him from power. Khan was facing a no-confidence vote in Parliament that would have unseated him, but his allies blocked the vote from happening. Pakistan’s Supreme Court is now hearing a pivotal case on whether it was within the authority of the speaker of the National Assembly to reject the motion for a vote of no confidence, says Pakistani journalist Munizae Jahangir.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: Pakistan is facing a constitutional crisis after Prime Minister Imran Khan dissolved Pakistan’s National Assembly and called for new elections in an effort to halt an attempt to remove him from power. Opposition MPs were planning to hold a no-confidence vote in Parliament, but Khan’s allies blocked the vote from happening. Opposition lawmakers have accused Imran Khan of carrying out an “open coup against the country and the Constitution.” Pakistan’s Supreme Court is now weighing whether Khan’s moves were legal.

Imran Khan has defended his actions, saying they block what he described as a plot by the United States to remove him from power. This is Imran Khan speaking last week.


PRIME MINISTER IMRAN KHAN: [translated] This is a big conspiracy, not against Imran Khan but against Pakistan itself. Slowly people have started realizing what a big conspiracy has taken place, and it has been hatching since October by all these traitors who have been robbing the country for the past 35 years. They were doing it in league with external forces. Now, let me openly take the name of America. This conspiracy has been carried out in connivance with America. But I want to know: What does America have against me? I have never been anti-American.

AMY GOODMAN: Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, speaking last week. The Biden administration has denied the allegations.

We go now to Islamabad, where we’re joined by Munizae Jahangir, a journalist and host of a political talk show on Pakistan’s leading news network, also editor-in-chief of the digital media platform Voicepk.net. She’s the daughter of the pioneering Pakistani human rights activist and lawyer Asma Jahangir, who died in 2018. Munizae is on the board of the Asma Jahangir Foundation and a council member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

Munizae Jahangir, welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s an honor to have you with us. Can you start off by just laying out, especially for an audience not familiar with Pakistani politics, how significant what is happening in Pakistan is right now?

MUNIZAE JAHANGIR: Well, firstly, thank you so much for having me on your show. It is a real honor to be here.

Now, to tell you what exactly is happening in Pakistan — and it’s always very difficult to describe to people what is happening in Pakistan — Imran Khan was elected in 2018. He was widely accused by the opposition at that time that he was “selected.” They called him the selected prime minister because it was an accusation that the military had actually brought him in, that they had rigged the election and brought him in.

Now, during the time that he has been in power, there has been very high inflation in Pakistan, 13 to 15%, a double-digit inflation. Unemployment has been on its rise. And what he has really done is, you know, have corruption cases against — lodged corruption cases against most of his opponents. And none of these corruption cases could be, you know, in a way that when they went to court — when the corruption cases went to court, they could not really prove that these people had committed corruption, and therefore, the cases just remain there.

Now, during this time, the opposition got together and got the allies of Imran Khan, Imran Khan’s government, together, as well, because he was not having such a smooth relationship with his allies, and his government was a thin majority cobbled together with different allies. The allies came with the opposition, and they filed a no motion — a vote of no confidence, a motion of vote of no confidence, in the National Assembly. After that, the speaker allowed the vote of no confidence to move forward. But on the day of the voting, the speaker did not appear in the National Assembly, which is our main house — it’s like the Congress — and it was, in fact, the deputy speaker who came in and said all of those who are in the opposition — and there were 198 of them, including the allies — that they have been disloyal to the state of Pakistan.

And they quoted an Article 5, and they quoted — well, it was being widely understood and the prime minister had talked about this cable that had been received by the Pakistani ambassador in Washington, saying that they had a meeting with the U.S. under secretary of state, in which he said that if Imran Khan wins the no-confidence motion, then there will be dire consequences for Pakistan. And therefore, Imran Khan went on and said to the public that there is an American conspiracy against my government, and the person who is behind the Americans’ conspiracy and is with the Americans is, in fact, Nawaz Sharif, his main opponent in the Punjab.

So, after having said that, the Assembly was dissolved by the prime minister. Now the entire issue has gone to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. And the question before them is that whether it was in the jurisdiction of the speaker to, firstly, reject the motion of no confidence — how can he reject the notion of no confidence when it was there to be voted upon, either yes or no? — and, secondly, whether the prime minister in fact enjoyed the confidence of the very house that it dissolved. So, that is really the question before the Supreme Court today.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Munizae Jahangir, I wanted to ask you — in terms of the role of the military, the military in Pakistan has always played an outsized role, often intervening in the political life of the country. If you’re saying that he was perceived as a candidate of the military, where does the military stand right now?

MUNIZAE JAHANGIR: Well, it’s very interesting, because one of the things that the opposition kept saying when they were moving the vote of no confidence, and even before they moved the vote of no confidence, they kept saying the allies will come to us, will back us, once the military becomes “neutral.” Now, we do not know whether the military in fact has been neutral or has not been neutral, but it is very certain that those allies, who have always aligned with the military, have now joined the opposition, and the military is now being seen by the opposition as being neutral.

But on the other hand, the courts in our country have a very terrible history. They have always sided with the military. They have been a rubber stamp on all kinds of dictatorship and military intervention in Pakistan, except for the famous Asma Jilani case — you mentioned my mother — where one of the military dictators, Yahya Khan, was declared a usurper, and therefore, whatever came later was considered illegal. Whatever he did his entire rule was considered illegal. Now, that is considered the glorious moment of the Supreme Court. But if you set that aside and you look at the history of the courts in Pakistan, they have traditionally sided with the establishment.

Therefore, all eyes are now on the Supreme Court of what the Supreme Court decides. Whether it will restore the assemblies, before the prime minister dissolved them, and allow the vote of no confidence motion to go through, that is something that we will have to wait and see. But certainly, the Constitution of Pakistan is very clear, which is that the prime minister, who doesn’t have the majority in the house, who has lost the majority in the house, he cannot dissolve the Assembly, because he doesn’t command the majority of the house, in which case there were 198 legislators that went against him, when in fact they only needed 172.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you mentioned the political role of the court. On Monday, Imran Khan named the former Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed for the office of caretaker prime minister. What’s behind that action of his?

MUNIZAE JAHANGIR: Well, I think that he has just — this is the outgoing chief justice that he named, and he probably wanted to have some kind of influence with the Supreme Court, and therefore, he mentioned one of them, one of the outgoing Supreme Court judges. I think that is the reason why he named that particular chief justice. And that is how it is being seen here.

But having said that, there has also been talk of a technocratic government in Pakistan, that the politicians will be pushed out and there would be a technocratic government in Pakistan. So, people in Pakistan and politicians in Pakistan are very skeptical of what is really going to happen, whether there will be early elections, whether the assemblies will be restored, whether in fact another setup will come which will be of technocrats, and they will do as the military pleases.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about Pakistan’s relations with Russia? I mean, the Prime Minister Imran Khan met with Vladimir Putin on February 24th in Moscow at the Kremlin on the same day Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine. Talk about the significance of this and the fact that all this is taking place against this backdrop of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

MUNIZAE JAHANGIR: Well, absolutely. That’s one of the things that Prime Minister Imran Khan has said. He has said that “the reason that I am being ousted is because the Americans are upset with the way my country has aligned itself to China, with the way my foreign policy has aligned itself to Russia, and therefore, I am being ousted. And with the collaboration, with the conspiracy of the opposition, the Americans are moving this no-confidence motion.” He even went as far as saying that the dissidents who have deflected from his party to the opposition have met people within the American Embassy. So, he is building that narrative that he is anti-America, that he is pro-Russia, that he’s pro-China, that he’s aligning closer to these powers, and therefore, his country — his government is being voted out.

Now, regarding the meeting, he said something very important, as well. He said that “We had discussed this,” because he’s very close to the military. So, he said, “I had discussed my trip with the military of Pakistan, and they both — the civilian side and the military side both agreed that this was the right time to go to Russia. And after that is when I went to Moscow.” So he says he got the greenlight from the military, in fact, to travel to Moscow at the time that he did.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, I wanted to ask you, in terms of — last August, after the Taliban overthrew the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan, Imran Khan said that the change in regime had, quote, “broken the shackles of slavery.” What did he mean there? Could you talk a little bit about the tortured relationship and the murky relationship between Pakistan and the Taliban throughout the period of the War in Afghanistan?

MUNIZAE JAHANGIR: Well, I think that one of the things that perhaps Imran Khan and the military agree with, and their thinking is around the same, is that they do believe that the Taliban in Afghanistan — and they see them as a legitimate political entity in Afghanistan, and the Americans are obviously seen as invaders. And Imran Khan has always seen it that way, and that now that the Americans have gone and the Taliban have moved in, that the genuine people have moved in and taken control from the Western foreign invaders. And that is why he said that.

So, there has been — I know Pakistan has been accused of having links with the Taliban, and, of course, they have had those links. And now Pakistan is being used to even talk to the Taliban. So, Imran Khan’s reasoning really is that Pakistan is being used to talk to the Taliban and everybody else is also talking to the Taliban, then why should we not say that these are the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan? So I think he is saying it in that context.

But to give you a little bit of a background, Imran Khan has always been accused by his opponents of being called “Taliban Khan,” simply because he has not only supported the Taliban in Afghanistan but also has provided justification for the violence that they have leashed out in our country, in Pakistan. And he is seen to be conservative-minded. He is seen to be somebody who has supported the right-wing agenda in Pakistan. And he’s seen to be somebody who has always talked about the — and more and more, he’s done so more and more — about Islam in the state. So, he’s talked about Islam in politics, and he increasingly talks about Islam in politics. And he refers to all kinds of Islamic injunctions when he’s giving a speech. So, therefore, he is somebody who’s seen to be now more right-wing.

AMY GOODMAN: Last minute we have with you, Munizae, if you can talk about what you predict will happen? The Supreme Court adjourned until Wednesday the hearing to decide the legality of the prime minister’s blocking of the opposition ousting him, a dispute that, of course, has led to political turmoil in your country, in the nuclear-armed Pakistan. Either way it goes, what will happen?

MUNIZAE JAHANGIR: It’s very, very difficult to predict what is going to happen in Pakistan. But having said that — and I would just like to add one more thing. Also, Imran Khan’s views on women are very similar to the views the Taliban have on women. So he does believe most of the things that the Taliban say about women. And we’ve seen, you know, a manifestation. We’ve seen that when he’s given interviews to the Western press, as well.

But coming back to what is going to happen in Pakistan, well, if they follow the law and the Constitution, then what the speaker did, which was throw out the motion for vote of no confidence, would be deemed illegal and unconstitutional, in which case the assemblies will be restored. And we will go back to the situation which was before the 3rd of April, where the vote of no confidence was submitted before the house to be voted upon. That is one scenario.

The second scenario really is that they will take a middle ground, that they will say the speaker, whatever he did was unconstitutional and illegal, but they will move towards early elections, and they will allow the country to have early elections, and not say anything about what will happen to the assemblies.

And, of course, the third is that they say that whatever the speaker did was part of his — was allowed to him under his jurisdiction, and therefore, you know, we move towards elections.

So, either which ways, we are looking at elections in the next couple of months. In Pakistan, there was discussion before the vote of no confidence was thrown out that there is going to be an interim setup. And after that interim setup, there will be a caretaker and then elections. Now, in that interim setup, there would be everybody, all allies, except for Imran Khan’s party. And they would make some electoral reforms that are very necessary to hold free and fair elections in Pakistan, and then move on to a caretaker and then to elections. So, it’s anybody’s guess in what will happen in Pakistan.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Munizae Jahangir, thank you so much for explaining it, journalist and host of a political talk show on Pakistan’s leading news network, also editor-in-chief of the digital media platform Voicepk.net. She also serves on the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

This is viewer supported news. Please do your part today.DONATE

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Poor in El Salvador Face Brunt of Crackdown on Gang Violence as Gov’t Suspends Rights, Arrests 6,000+

STORY APRIL 05, 2022



TOPICS
El Salvador
Civil Rights

GUESTS
Nelson Rauda
journalist at the Central American independent online newspaper El Faro.

LINKS
Nelson Rauda on Twitter
El Faro


We go to El Salvador for an update on how the government under President Nayib Bukele has arrested over 6,000 people since a 30-day state of emergency was imposed following a wave of violence. The state of exception has suspended freedom of assembly and weakened due process rights for those arrested, including an extension of how long people can be held without charge. Nelson Rauda, a journalist at the newspaper El Faro who has been a target of harassment and surveillance by the Salvadoran government, says the impact of the state of exception has a class divide. “If you have resources … you might go about the state of exception as if nothing is happening,” he says. “For the majority of the country which comes from the lower-income population, it’s been difficult. It’s military checkpoints and police checkpoints and stop-and-frisk.”

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we turn now to El Salvador, where concerns about human rights violations are growing as the government enforces a brutal 30-day state of emergency that temporarily suspends several constitutional protections. The Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele said Monday that in the first nine days of the state of emergency, police have arrested more than 6,000 people accused of being in gangs. Salvadorans have taken to the streets to protest police abuse.


MARIA MATILDE SORIANO: [translated] It is a great injustice. In the case of my family, it was my niece who was unjustly taken from her home, without an arrest warrant or anything, because supposedly she is the partner of a gang member.

AMY GOODMAN: El Salvador’s judicial assembly approved a 30-day state of emergency, or state of exception, following reports of 62 homicides attributed to gangs on one Saturday alone at the end of March, the most violent day in El Salvador in at least two decades. Salvadoran lawmakers passed the decree at 3 a.m. — that’s 3:00 in the morning — following demands from President Bukele, whose government has been accused of abuse of power and human rights violations. This is Salvadoran human rights activist Celia Medrano.


CELIA MEDRANO: [translated] This is a narrative typical of authoritarian governments, which tries to deceive us and convince us that violating human rights of others is the only thing that guarantees that some good Salvadorans can live in peace.

AMY GOODMAN: Multiple constitutional rights have been suspended under the state of emergency, including the right to assembly. The decree also allows for extended administrative detention, increasing the period of detention without cause from 72 hours to 15 days. The president also ordered a 24/7 isolation and lockdown of accused gang members currently in prison.

For more, we go directly to San Salvador to speak with Nelson Rauda, reporter for the award-winning Central American independent online newspaper El Faro.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Nelson. Can you describe the state of emergency and what’s happening in the streets right now?

NELSON RAUDA: Thank you so much for having me in the show, Amy.

It really depends on where you’re standing in El Salvador. It’s become a tale of two cities. For one, if you have resources, if you’re living in a private residential compound or apartment or you have your own vehicle, you might go about this state of exception as if nothing is happening. Restaurants are open, discotheques, clubs, concerts, this kind of stuff. The president has emphasized that.

On the other hand, for I think the majority of the country, which comes from the lower-income population, it’s been difficult. It’s military checkpoints and police checkpoints and stop-and-frisk. And 6,000 detainees still have cells, 6,000 detainees in the last nine days, which will soon create a huge bottleneck in the judiciary system. It’s not a judiciary system that’s large or has grand capabilities. I was just looking at some stats, but we have like some four public defenders for every 100,000 inhabitants, and some eight judges and eight prosecutors for the same ratios.

So this will eventually create that bottleneck, but it also will retain a lot of people, maybe unfairly in prison if they haven’t had anything. We have scores of people who are on the streets looking for their relatives, looking for them in the places where the police has taken them. And a lot of them are saying, “My relative, my family member, my niece, my son is not a member of criminal gangs or a member of organized crime.” How can you know, though? Well, that’s how democracy should work. You have a judge. You have an opportunity to present your cases. You have the right to a defender. So, these are the rights that are suspended right now in El Salvador. The defense right is suspended. So it means that the majority or nobody of the 6,000 persons has had an access to an attorney or to a lawyer. They haven’t been presented to a judge, which the Constitution demands.

But, as you said, the Legislative Assembly passed the law at 3 a.m. on Sunday. We actually had 87 homicides on the weekend, between Friday, Saturday and Sunday. So, it’s a reaction from the government to what has been probably the worst violence crisis under Nayib Bukele’s term since 2019, but it’s also a response that goes back to what mostly every Salvadoran government has done since the end of the civil war: massive detentions of people and the huge bottlenecks in the judiciary system and the increasing of the incarcerated population — which has so far never solved El Salvador’s problem of violence, and which, before 2019, President Bukele himself believed wasn’t the solution. But it’s exactly what he’s doing right now, and showing his tougher side so far.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Nelson, I wanted to ask you — this is not the first wave of major violence in El Salvador. Back in 2011, around there, El Salvador had the highest homicide rate in the world. And back then, former governments instituted the Mano Dura policy, the “strong hand,” again, cracking down on these gangs, many of which actually traced their roots to the United States, because for a long period of time the United States deported about 300,000 people to the Northern Triangle countries who had been convicted of crimes here in the United States. So, I’m wondering: What’s different about this particular situation and the way that Bukele is attacking the rise of violence?

NELSON RAUDA: The difference mainly is that — there is no difference in the ideas. It’s ironic, to say the least, because Bukele’s party is called New Ideas, and there’s nothing new about these ideas. This is exactly the same policies that have been implemented since the end of ’92.

There’s a little history lesson there, because El Salvador ended its civil war, which raged during the ’80s — it ended in 1992. And when that happened, the Clinton administration in the United States started deporting, as you said, a lot of gang members, gang members from L.A., from California. And so, they were sent to a country which had their institutions restructured, and it was barely entering the age of democracy. So, those gang members that came from the United States, they started to create this problem. But then it all worsened because all of the governments in El Salvador were unable to see what this would become.

The gangs are not only a crime problem, they’re a social problem. There’s only — the official number was 60,000 gang members a while ago. President Bukele said yesterday it was close to 84,000. But then you have to think about the social bases of the gangs — their families, their relatives, the people who depend on their economy — and their criminal economy, but depend on them nonetheless. So this is a social problem in El Salvador.

And there’s nothing new about this idea. Every country — every government in the country has implemented some sort of Mano Dura, from Calderón Sol, who implemented during the '90s some sort of death squad, parapolice forces, and then Mano Dura with Francisco Flores at the end of the ’90s and the turn of the century, then Super Mano Dura, which was the same advertising policy, which didn't really solve any of the problems during Tony Saca’s problem. And then we came to Mauricio Funes, and he did a truce with the gangs, which violently exploded in 2015, where we again were the world champion of homicides, and then, under President — under the former President Sánchez Cerén, which the judiciary — or, extralegal executions became systemic.

So, it’s almost a thing with trying to solve a fire with gasoline, and it’s always worked as you would imagine that it would work. It’s always worked increasing violence. And we have documented the negotiations between Mr. Bukele’s government and the gangs, but this is again what is happening. When those negotiations go sideways, we don’t know why and explain what went wrong. But definitely something went wrong. And —

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Nelson, I wanted to ask you —

NELSON RAUDA: — we had that weekend. Yeah.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you — in terms of Bukele himself, he’s been portrayed as a maverick, as a populist, as a right-wing populist, similar to Duterte in the Philippines. How popular is he in the population with these policies?

NELSON RAUDA: Extremely popular. El Salvador, like 40% of Salvadorans — according to a study from the Florida International University in 2017, 40% of Salvadorans support torture as a way of obtaining information from criminals, allegedly. So, these are not unpopular measures. And you have to understand that while the gangs are a social problem, they have caused a lot of pain to a lot of families. So, people, in a way, they like to see the police, you know, manhandling criminals. Or, recently, a video has gone viral about some policemen or soldiers stomping in their boots on the neck of a criminal. And this is not something that’s going to cause an outrage in the population, at least not in the majority. People think that it’s OK, because this is, I think, engraved in their culture, like the violence and maybe the impunity. So, this is popular.

But with the arbitrary detentions and these kind of things, I think he is doing some kind of damage to his bases. He has always been very popular with the lower-income neighborhoods. And I think some of that will change, at least individually or at least with some people, because they are seeing that these are the same crackdowns that we saw in previous governments, and they didn’t really do something to solve the issue.

AMY GOODMAN: Nelson, as we wrap up, Bukele is expected to be in Miami this weekend, attending a bitcoin conference. Bitcoin is a form of currency, of the legal currency in El Salvador. Can you talk about the president’s commitment to prioritizing bitcoin and investing in it, as opposed to other social issues, what this has meant for El Salvador and how it relates to the state of emergency?

NELSON RAUDA: It will be definitely interesting to see how President Bukele spins the state of exemption and the regime and the crackdown, while he promotes himself as a champion of freedom for bitcoin. It’s really strange for the bitcoin community, which, you know, posits itself to be freedom and separating money from the state, to be so encouraged and so enthusiastic about a government, a state.

But yeah, I think Bukele’s — and my take, having covered the bitcoin implementation since last year, is that there’s an endgame greater than bitcoin for Bukele — and he has shown and hinted at it — which is he’s really at odds with the Biden administration. He doesn’t get a loan from the IMF, which his government has searched for — or, has sought for since March 2021. So, there’s an interest of attracting foreign investment, promoting the country as a tourist destination, and also trying to find a way to finance the country without the IMF, without the Biden administration, without making compromises to things like democracy or human rights, which other organizations, such as, like, you know, the World Bank with us — for some billionaires in crypto, this is not as important, and so he’s trying to appeal to that crowd. And I think will be interesting. And I think what you will see from Bukele — I think he’s scheduled to speak on Thursday — is a sales pitch to appeal to this particular demographic.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you for being with us. Nelson Rauda is a reporter for El Faro, the Central American independent online newspaper, speaking to us from El Salvador, the capital San Salvador.

This is viewer supported news. Please do your part today.DONATE

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

A Poor People’s Pandemic: Report Reveals Poor Died from COVID at Twice the Rate of Wealthy in U.S.

STORY

APRIL 05, 2022

GUESTS
Rev. Liz Theoharis
co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign and executive director of the Kairos Center at Union Theological Seminary.

LINKS
Rev. Liz Theoharis on Twitter
"Poor People's Pandemic Report"
Image Credit: @anewppc

The newly released “Poor People’s Pandemic Report” shows poor people died from COVID at twice the rate of wealthy Americans and that people of color were more likely to die than white populations. “Our country has gotten used to unnecessary death, especially when it’s the death of poor people,” says Rev. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

As the United States nears 1 million deaths from COVID-19, those living in poor and low-income communities suffer twice as many deaths as wealthier counties. That’s the finding of a new report by the Poor People’s Campaign and economists at the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

This is Dr. Sharrelle Barber, director at the Ubuntu Center at Drexel University School of Public Health, announcing the report Monday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Yes, she’s the daughter of the Poor People’s Campaign founder, Bishop William Barber.


SHARRELLE BARBER: This poverty and pandemic report is painful. An invisible airborne virus has proven to us that we are caught up in an inescapable network of mutuality, and has shown us, with vivid detail, the deadly consequences of systemic poverty and systemic racism in our nation. But even more troubling is our inhumane acceptance of mass death.

AMY GOODMAN: The “Poor People’s Pandemic Report” draws on testimony from members of the Poor People’s Campaign. This is Tyrone Gardner and Fred Womack in Mississippi, followed by Jessica Jimenez, a single mother of three who lives with both her parents in the Bronx.


TYRONE GARDNER: I do have a health concern. I have sarcoidosis, which is an autoimmune disease. And so, I was stricken with COVID. My wife, she has lupus. She was also — contracted COVID. And because I don’t have money, it was 17 days before they even told me I had COVID.


FRED WOMACK: Coronavirus hit our family real hard here in Mississippi, especially in the Jackson central area. You know, we went through periods where we lost three or four family members at a time, you know, having four funerals in one day, you know.


JESSICA JIMENEZ: Not being able to pay my rent and bills on time was one of my biggest worries. You know, I was scared not being able to have a home for my children, not having a rent-control apartment, not getting any help to pay bills. And it was either paying my bills or having to spend that money on food and things that were necessary for my children.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by the Reverend Dr. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign. She’s joining us from Martinsburg, West Virginia, where they’re launching a protest against Senator Joe Manchin, which we’ll talk about in minute.

Reverend Theoharis, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you lay out the findings of the “Poor People’s Pandemic Report,” which was released on the 54th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s assassination in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was fighting for the rights of low-wage sanitation workers?

REV. LIZ THEOHARIS: Well, good morning, Amy, and thanks for having us on today.

We’re not celebrating this report. We’re deeply mourning the fact that — the extent of loss, the gravity of how much death, and how much of it was completely necessary. But indeed, what is shown in this “Poor People’s Pandemic Report” is that, overall in the pandemic, twice the number of poor people from poor counties died from COVID — and in various waves of the pandemic, up to five times the number of people in poor counties — than in richer counties died.

And so, the report is — there’s an interactive map. There’s a storyboard. I really encourage folks to go to PoorPeoplesCampaign.org and check out. There’s many, many findings, but it kind of overlays COVID deaths county by county, looking at about 3,200 counties across the country, and looks at income levels in those counties, look at healthcare coverage in those counties, looks at racial demographics and other demographics in those counties, and clearly shows that after that first wave of when COVID hit in early of 2020, really the mass death and loss has been amongst poor people.

And vaccination status doesn’t explain this alone. You know, there’s counties that we explore in this that are highly vaccinated. There’s double-boosted. There’s counties that are with lower vaccination rates in all income areas. But what is clear also, across all of the income groups and counties, is that poor people are dying at least two times as much.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Reverend Theoharis, why choose West Virginia as the place for this Poor People’s Campaign march, the 23 miles from Harpers Ferry to Martinsburg?

REV. LIZ THEOHARIS: Yes, indeed. So, we’re here. You know, we launched this report yesterday showing how our country has gotten used to unnecessary death, especially when it’s the death of poor people, low-income people. And here in West Virginia, where I am currently, you know, it’s one of the poorest states. There are 710,000 people in the state who are poor and low-income. And yet you have senators in the state who have refused to expand healthcare, expand — you know, raise wages, pass any kind of Build Back Better and extend the child tax credit. And that doesn’t just hurt folks in West Virginia, but it hurts people across the country.

And so, leaders of the West Virginia Poor People’s Campaign and other community leaders decided to organize a march. It’s a moral march on Senator Manchin. We will be marching from Harpers Ferry, from Storer College, where the second meeting of the Niagara Movement and, you know, Du Bois and so many powerful leaders, freedom fighters in our country’s history, met and figured out how do we keep a struggle going. And we’ll march to Martinsburg to Senator Manchin’s offices there. There will be demonstrations at various places, including the coal waste plant where Manchin makes his money off of coal, and, you know, really highlighting the connection between the evils, the interlocking injustices that the Poor People’s Campaign has taken up — you know, poverty and racism and ecological devastation and militarism and this distorted, this false narrative of religious nationalism that kind of covers up these wide and deep injustices that just do not have to be.

You know, people here in West Virginia deeply need and want to lift the load of poverty and to address these issues, and see the connections between environmental issues and health issues, as well as poverty and labor and racism. And yet, the elected officials here are not putting forward the kinds of programs, on a state level or on a national level, to actually address these injustices and make life better for the people.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you and Bishop Barber and other members of the Poor People’s Campaign have called on President Biden to meet at the White House with a delegation of poor and low-wealth people and religious leaders. Certainly at the Democratic convention, when Biden was nominated, a lot of attention was paid to the issues of the poor, but has there been any response from the president about this?

REV. LIZ THEOHARIS: Well, it does seem that the president’s handlers are kind of holding this up. We have gotten every indication that President Biden is interested in meeting. You know, when he addressed the Poor People’s Campaign in the election and after the inauguration, he said that ending poverty would be not just an aspiration but a theory of change.

And so, what the report that we launched yesterday shows is just one more kind of exclamation point on the fact that we need this meeting between poor and low-income people, folks that have been — who have lost loved ones in this pandemic and who are losing loved ones to poverty and racism and the destruction of our environment and militarism, you know, even before, and made worse during this pandemic. And so, indeed, it’s impossible to be able to really hear the pain and come up with the solutions that are at hand, that we do have, without such a meeting. And so we’re calling for that meeting.

And then we’re also organizing for a massive poor people and low-wage workers’ assembly, a moral march on Washington and to the polls, this coming June 18th, where thousands upon thousands of poor and low-income people from all across the country will be in Washington, D.C., making sure that our voices are heard and our agenda is clear, that we can’t keep on letting people die and have lives diminished because of this injustice and because of poverty. In this, the richest country in human history, how is it that we can have half of the U.S. population experiencing some form of poverty, when it just doesn’t have to be?

AMY GOODMAN: Reverend Dr. Liz Theoharis, I want to thank you so much for being with us, joining us from West Virginia, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, also executive director of the Kairos Center at Union Theological Seminary here in New York. We will link to your “Poor People’s Pandemic Report.”

That does it for our show. Democracy Now! is currently accepting for applications for a news producer. Check it out at democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Stay safe.

This is viewer supported news. Please do your part today.DONATE

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

 

WATCH | Nasa astronaut speaks about record 355 days in space

05 April 2022 - 16:00BY TIMESLIVE VIDEO

Nasa astronaut Mark Vande Hei discusses his record-breaking mission to the International Space Station. He logged a US space-endurance record of 355 consecutive days in orbit, surpassing the previous 340-day record set by astronaut Scott Kelly in 2016, according to Nasa.

Ukraine: Russia boasts of its precision missiles – so why are hospitals being destroyed?

Published: April 5, 2022
THE CONVERSATION

Over recent years, Russia has often boasted about the capabilities of its precision-guided missiles (PGMs). Two years ago the Defence Ministry released a video of its Tornado-S precision missile which, it said, can strike targets to within one metre. Given that such precise munitions also provide the ability to avoid striking clinics and hospitals in Ukraine, the question is surely: why have these healthcare facilities been hit?

I have seen these PGMs at work. A few years ago, while researching a book, I was allowed to watch real-time, air-launched Hellfire missile strikes against Islamic State jihadists. I saw a missile hit a moving motorbike in Syria from another continent – something scarcely believable to witness.

In Ukraine, meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) had identified 82 Russian military attacks on Ukrainian healthcare facilities by April 4. Dr Jarno Habicht, WHO representative in Ukraine, had previously described such attacks on healthcare as “a violation of international humanitarian law”, which destroyed both critical infrastructure and hope. Habicht added: “They deprive already vulnerable people of care that is often the difference between life and death. Health care is not – and should never be – a target.”

The UN high commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet, has also accused Russia of “indiscriminate attacks” which “may amount to war crimes”. International humanitarian law clearly states that during armed conflict, civilian hospitals may not be attacked under any circumstances. They should also be respected and protected at all times by all parties.

Written by academics, edited by journalists, backed by evidence.Get newsletter

Russia’s own military regulations acknowledge these protections. In addition, they oblige Russian officers to set an example by ensuring international humanitarian law is observed and ensuring subordinates understand their legal obligations. They are further required to repress violations of IHL by subordinates, calling offenders to account and reporting them.

That’s the theory. But in practice, given that the WHO analysis has verified such a large number of attacks on Ukrainian healthcare facilities, they have regularly committed war crimes under international law.

So why is the Russian military not using precision munitions to avoid hitting hospitals? The answer depends on understanding what PGMs are for and how they fit into Russia’s military approach.

PGMs include missiles launched from aircraft and from ships as well as multiple ground-launched rockets and guided bombs. There were three main reasons for developing PGMs: hitting critical targets, reducing the number of combat sorties and munitions required, and limiting collateral damage to civilian structures and civilians.

An example from the Vietnam War shows why political and military leaders want PGMs. Between 1965 and 1972 the US conducted 869 bombing raids against the Thanh Hoa Bridge in North Vietnam. All 869 attacks failed and 11 aircraft were shot down in the process. When a new laser-guided bomb was used in May 1972, the bridge was destroyed at the first attempt.
Avoiding civilian casualties

Since 9/11, during the US War on Terror civilian deaths reduced public support in a way that military casualties or mission failure did not. Firing PGMs from military drones became a way of protecting civilians – or at least reducing civilian deaths. But for political more than ethical or legal reasons.

Maintaining public support for military action, by avoiding civilian casualties, is important in democracies. Every few years, a dissatisfied populace can vote politicians out of office.

In Russia’s attack on Ukraine, Putin’s priorities are different. Military casualties are deeply unpopular, especially with the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia. Mission failure is unthinkable, while civilian casualties appear to be of little concern. And, in any case, the idea that Russian forces have committed atrocities against civilians has been denied outright by the country’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov.

Senior Russian officer, Colonel-General Mikhail Mizintsev, has been added to the UK’s sanctions list after it was reported he had ordered the bombing of a maternity hospital and theatre in Mariupol. More than 1,000 civilians were sheltering there and 300 are reported to have been killed. Mizintsev also allegedly orchestrated Moscow’s bombing campaign in Syria which included regular attacks on hospitals.

Al-Shami hospital in Jericho, western Syria, which was bombed by warplanes, believed to be Russian, in January 2020. Moawia Atrash/ZUMA Wire/Alamy Stock Photo

Attacks on health centres heighten fear among target populations, prompting many to flee. In 2016, Russia was accused of “weaponising refugees” from Syria for geopolitical gain. Russia’s destruction of hospitals in Ukraine echoes that approach. Now, Russia’s armed forces show no sign of using the accuracy of PGMs to avoid striking Ukrainian hospitals. And no attempt to conform to international humanitarian law.

On February 24, Putin authorised what he termed a “special military operation” against Ukraine. He also made it illegal for Russians to refer to this military operation as “war” or an “invasion”. Avoiding these terms looks like an attempt to avoid the obligations of international humanitarian law to protect hospitals and civilians which apply under the Geneva Convention in “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict”. But, even if Putin wanted to use PGMs near hospitals, the US secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, has suggested Russia is “running low” on precision missiles.
Warnings from history

Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian hospitals appear consistent with the brutal bombing approach suggested a century ago by Italian military theorist Giulio Douhet. “Merciless pounding from the air”, he wrote, would cause a breakdown of social structure, shatter the morale of civilians, and break their will to keep resisting.

But Germany’s bombing of London in the first world war, the Allied strategic bombing of Germany in the second world war and US bombing in the Vietnam War all suggest otherwise. Bombed civilian populations have been resilient and determined to persevere.

Even without precision missiles, it would be possible for Russia to avoid striking Ukrainian medical centres – but only if the political and military will existed. It appears that no such will exists. Instead, the evidence suggests Russia is using conventional bombing to hit civilian hospitals, then using disinformation to deny such actions.

Author

Peter Lee
Professor of Applied Ethics and Director, Security and Risk Research, University of Portsmouth
Disclosure statement

Charity linked to UK anti-onshore wind campaigns active again


Analysis: Renewable Energy Foundation says it does not see renewables as a large part of net zero strategy

Anti-onshore wind campaigner put in charge of council’s ‘green masterplan’

Wind turbines at sunset in Northumberland. 

Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian


Helena Horton Environment reporter

Tue 5 Apr 2022 14.39 BST


While the name of the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) suggests it is a charity dedicated to promoting low-carbon electricity, it appears to spend most of its time campaigning against onshore wind.

When it was founded in 2004, with the TV personality Noel Edmonds as its chair, the organisation was clear it wanted to fight against the “grotesque political push” for onshore renewable energy in the UK.

It styles itself on its website as “a registered charity promoting sustainable development for the benefit of the public by means of energy conservation and the use of renewable energy”. However, many in the energy sector believe the charity to be full of anti-wind lobbyists.

As onshore wind expanded at the beginning of the century, many people felt affronted by what they saw as “eyesores”. It was something many grassroots Conservative party members were angry about, and articles in the Daily Mail and Telegraph frequently complained about a “plague” of windfarms. Some conservationists prefer other forms of renewable energy to onshore wind, which is feared to deplete biodiversity in some areas.

The REF was on hand to help with the campaign against onshore renewables, providing research and quotes to the rightwing press.


Anti-onshore wind campaigner put in charge of council’s ‘green masterplan’

But at the time, others, including the Guardian, questioned the motives of this group. In 2008, the REF had what it described as a “dialogue” with the Charity Commission over whether it was violating its charitable status by being too political in its campaigning. The Charity Commission said it assessed the complaint relating to the REF’s campaigning activities and determined there was no evidence that it was not charitable, but also provided guidance about how to achieve its objectives as an organisation.

The REF has strong links to a group accused of climate science scepticism, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, started by the former chancellor Nigel Lawson, who has denied global heating is a problem.

Prof Michael Kelly, a trustee of the REF also has a position on the board of the GWPF. John Constable, an adviser to the GWPF, has been quoted as an REF spokesperson and was previously its director of policy and research. Constable answered the Guardian’s questions for this article on behalf of the REF.

Since the first onshore wind farm was built in Cornwall in 1991, local groups have formed to fight against the construction of turbines in their area. By 2004, when the REF formed, there were many of these groups. Articles based on the REF’s findings appeared in rightwing papers, helping to sway public opinion against renewable energy. MPs also used briefings from the REF to lobby the government

This seemed to bear fruit. Although in 2011, what was then the Department of Energy and Climate Change said there was a need for onshore wind and that it was a cheap and effective source of renewable energy, the then prime minister David Cameron began to listen to his backbenchers about their distaste for it. In 2015, he said he wanted to rid the countryside of the “unsightly” structures.

He did just that. Onshore wind was officially blocked from bidding for financial support available to other forms of renewable energy in 2016, leading to a 94% decline in the number of new projects. It has become very difficult to secure planning permission for renewables, with figures from RenewableUK showing that there are approximately 7,000MW worth of onshore schemes waiting for planning permission.

While the REF has been relatively quiet in recent years, growing pressure on the government to support wind energy to help solve the energy crisis seems to have led to it becoming more active again.

In recent weeks, the charity has provided anti-onshore wind research to the Telegraph and Daily Mail. Colin Davie, a trustee of the REF, has appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme to oppose onshore wind.

Opposition to wind energy has been building in parliament, too. The prime minister, Boris Johnson, last week emphasised that he supported offshore wind, and made no mention of onshore. He is understood to believe that the renewable energy source is unpopular among Conservative MPs. Government sources have briefed that he would prefer to press on with a nuclear energy scheme, aiming for a quarter of the UK’s energy to be supplied by nuclear by 2050.

This seems to be out of tune with the public’s thinking. Recent polling for Politico found that 72% of people would support new windfarms in their local area, 52% more permits for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, and just 38% nuclear power stations in their area.

Constable, on behalf of the REF, said: “Our data is often used in planning debates, but we neither make planning applications nor create local opposition groups, so cannot be said to ‘start’ such discussions.”

Some Conservative MPs have supported expanding onshore wind. The Thirsk and Malton MP, Kevin Hollinrake, said that now was “the right time” to develop onshore energy “where there is local support”.

He continued: “I welcome the government’s decision to hold a new auction for onshore wind and solar. Public opinion has shifted decisively in favour of renewable energy in recent years, with CEN [Conservative Environment Network] polling showing that 74% of Conservative voters back onshore wind.”

Environmental campaigners have also been pushing for onshore wind expansion. A Greenpeace UK spokesperson said: “It’s a no-brainer that we should build more onshore wind. It’s the country’s cheapest energy source, one of the quickest to get up and running, and is supported by 80% of the public. Boris Johnson himself has had to rethink his former opposition to wind power and is now considering speeding up the deployment of onshore turbines. With huge public concern about our dependence on fossil fuel imports and skyrocketing bills, any politician actively campaigning against the UK’s cheapest source of homegrown energy has some serious explaining to do to their constituents.”

But onshore wind expansion will be unpopular with many Conservatives, including those in the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, which says it accepts the fundamental facts of the climate emergency and the need to reduce emissions, but has been campaigning for more oil exploration, nuclear power and fracking as well as arguing against green subsidies and expansion of renewables.

Constable added that the REF had “no blanket policy” on renewables – but that the charity did not see them as a large part of the net zero strategy. He added: “Each proposal must be judged on its own merits, and providing that local environmental concerns offer no obstacle, niche applications may be suitable, as they may be for all renewables.”