Human rights campaigners of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine win Nobel Peace Prize


Illustration representing Nobel Peace Prize winners Ales Byalyatski,
Russian organisation Memorial and Ukrainian group Center for Civil Liberties.
—@nobelprize


Reuters Published October 7, 2022

Jailed Belarusian activist Ales Byalyatski, Russian organisation Memorial and Ukrainian group Center for Civil Liberties won the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, highlighting the significance of civil society for peace and democracy.

The prize will be seen by many as a condemnation of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is celebrating his 70th birthday on Friday, and Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, making it one of the most politically contentious in decades.



The award, the first since Russia’s Feb 24 invasion of Ukraine, has echoes of the Cold War era, when prominent Soviet dissidents such as Andrei Sakharov and Alexander Solzhenitsyn won Nobels for peace or literature.

“The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to honour three outstanding champions of human rights, democracy and peaceful co-existence in the neighbour countries Belarus, Russia and Ukraine,” said Committee Chair Berit Reiss-Andersen.

She called on Belarus to release Byalyatski from prison and said the prize was not against Putin.

“We always give the prize for something and to something and not against someone,” she told reporters.

Belarusian security police in July last year raided offices and homes of lawyers and human rights activists, detaining Byalyatski and others in a new crackdown on opponents of Lukashenko.

Authorities had moved to shut down non-state media outlets and human right groups after mass protests the previous August against a presidential election the opposition said was rigged.

“The (Nobel) Committee is sending a message that political freedoms, human rights and active civil society are part of peace,” Dan Smith, head of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, told Reuters.

The prize will boost morale for Byalyatski and strengthen the hand of the Center for Civil Liberties, an independent Ukrainian human rights organisation, which is also focused on fighting corruption, he said.

“Although Memorial has been closed in Russia, it lives on as an idea that it’s right to criticize power and that facts and history matter,” Smith added.
Reactions

Memorial said on Friday that winning the award was recognition of its human rights work and of colleagues who continue to suffer “unspeakable attacks and reprisals” in Russia.

Ukraine’s Center for Civil Liberties said on Friday it was proud to win.

“Morning with good news. We are proud,” it wrote on Twitter.



The award was also recognition for the whole Belarusian people in standing up to Lukashenko, opposition spokesman Franak Viacorka said.

He told Reuters that Byalyatski was jailed in “inhumane” conditions and he hoped the prize would lead to his release.

“That’s a huge sign of recognition for the Belarusian people, because the Belarusian people deserves it for their bravery in countering the tyranny of Lukashenko …. they deserve all the prizes in the world,” said Viacorka, chief of staff to exiled Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who is a close friend of Byalyatski.

The Nobel Peace Prize, worth 10 million Swedish crowns, or about $900,000, will be presented in Oslo on Dec. 10, the anniversary of the death of Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel, who founded the awards in his 1895 will.

“The Peace Prize laureates represent civil society in their home countries. They have for many years promoted the right to criticise power and protect the fundamental rights of citizens,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said in its citation.

“They have made an outstanding effort to document war crimes, human right abuses and the abuse of power. Together they demonstrate the significance of civil society for peace and democracy.”

Nobel Peace Prize Winners Shine Spotlight On ‘The Power Of Civil Society To Promote Peace’

Saturday, 8 October 2022
Press Release: UN News

The human rights advocates from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus who have been awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, represent “the oxygen of democracy” said the UN chief on Friday, in a message of congratulations to the three winners.

The laureates are Ales Bialiatski, a jailed activist in Belarus, the civil society organisations Memorial, which was forced to close its doors by the Russian authorities last year, and the Ukraine-based Centre for Civil Liberties.

“As the Nobel Committee cited, this year’s recognition shines a spotlight on the power of civil society to advance peace”, said Secretary-General António Guterres.
'Catalysts for peace'

“Civil society groups are the oxygen of democracy, and catalysts for peace, social progress and economic growth. They help keep governments accountable and carry the voices of the vulnerable into the halls of power.”

Mr. Bialatski was imprisoned in July 2021, as a result of the mass protest movement against the disputed re-election of Belarussian leader Alexander Lukashenko. Memorial is reportedly one of the oldest human rights organisations in Russia, led by previous peace prize laureate, Andrei Sakharov. It unearthed the full scale of suffering experienced in the notorious Stalinist-era prison camps, known as the Gulag.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, Ukraine’s Centre for Civil Liberties has begun documenting human rights abuses committed by Russian forces and their allies, having previously worked on exposing rights abuses in Russian-occupied Crimea, according to news reports.

The chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Berit Reiss-Andresen, said during the awards announcement that the three civil society winners “have for many years promoted the right to criticize power and protect the fundamental rights of citizens.”

Civic space shrinking

In his statement, Mr. Guterres noted that civic space was “narrowing across the world.” More and more, rights defenders, women’s rights advocates, environmental activists, journalists and others in the rights field, “face arbitrary arrest, harsh prison sentences, smear campaigns, crippling fines and violent attacks.”

“As we congratulate this year’s winners, let us pledge to defend the brave defenders of universal values of peace, hope and dignity for all”, the Secretary-General concluded.

© Scoop Media

 Belarus opposition urges release of Nobel winner Ales Bialiatski

Opponents of Minsk strongman Alexander Lukashenko say they hope the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to activist Ales Bialiatski might help precipitate his release from prison.

Biliatski remains in prison without trial after protests two years ago

A spokesman for the Belarusian opposition on Friday said he hoped the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Belarusian human rights activist Ales Bialiatski could bring about his release.

Bialiatski, who remains in jail without trial after protests in 2020 against the reelection of Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko, was the only individual honored with a Nobel Peace Prize also awarded to the Russian organization Memorial and Ukraine's Center for Civil Liberties.

What did the opposition say?

Opposition spokesman Franak Viacorka said the award was a recognition for all Belarusians who had stood up to Lukashenko and his authoritarian regime.

"They deserve all the prizes in the world," said Viacorka, chief of staff to exiled Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. 

Viacorka went on to add that the prize should attract attention to the plight of all political prisoners, including Bialiatski.

"He's kept in inhuman conditions and we hope it will help to release him and thousands of others from Lukashenko's and the KGB's cells," Viacorka said.

Tsikhanouskaya herself, a friend of Bialiatski, told the AP news agency that she thought the prize could have an indirect influence on Bialiatski's fate.

"Physically, you know, this prize will not influence their situation but I am sure it [will] influence the moods and intentions of other countries to help those people who are behind bars,'' she said.

The Nobel Prize committee itself also called for Bialiatski's release.

"He is still detained without trial. Despite tremendous personal hardship, Mr. Bialiatski has not yielded an inch in his fight for human rights and democracy in Belarus", the Nobel committee said.

The head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee Berit Reiss-Andersen said she hoped Bialiatski would be able to receive the award himself at a ceremony in December in Norway.

"We do hope... that he can come to Oslo and receive the honor bestowed upon him," she said.

Who is Ales Bialiatski?

Bialiatski was one among those who led the democracy movement in Belarus in the mid-1980s, but he has kept up his campaign for human rights and civil liberties in the country. 

The now 60-year-old was imprisoned from 2011 to 2014 and arrested again after massive more recent demonstrations against Lukashenko's regime.

Bialiatski was the founder of the non-governmental organization Human Rights Center Viasna and was the 2020  recipient of a Right Livelihood Award, sometimes referred to as the "Alternative Nobel."

Other reactions to the winners

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen hailed the "courage" of Bialiatski and the two organizations that won the prize.

"The Nobel Prize committee has recognized the outstanding courage of the women and men standing against autocracy. They show the true power of civil society in the fight for democracy," von der Leyen tweeted. 

Memorial itself said on Friday said the award recognized the work of colleagues who continue to suffer "unspeakable attacks and reprisals" in Russia.

"It encourages us in our resolve to support our Russian colleagues to continue their work at a new location, despite the forced dissolution of MEMORIAL International in Moscow," Memorial board member Anke Giesen told Reuters news agency.

French President Emmanuel Macron hailed the laureates, saying that their prize "pays homage to unwavering defenders of human rights in Europe."

Poland's Foreign Ministry also said it welcomed the recognition given to the winners.  

"We welcome the recognition of their efforts in the fight for freedom and respect for human rights," the ministry said on Twitter on Friday.

However, Ukrainian presidential advisor Mikhaylo Podolyak criticized the Nobel committee in a tweet, saying it has an "interesting understanding of word 'peace' if representatives of two countries that attacked a third one receive Nobel Prize together."

"Neither Russian nor Belarusian organizations were able to organize resistance to the war," he added.

But the 2015 Nobel Literature Prize winner Svetlana Alexievich told DW, "Today’s decision of the Nobel Committee shows the view of people in the West that Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians have their own heroes."

"I have already received calls from Ukraine. I understand the despair of Ukrainians who are shelled and whose friends die every day. They say they are not happy with this decision as an effort to reconcile all three nations," she said. "Probably they have their reasons to think so. But I can’t imagine at this point how individuals can do something if the whole society is not active."

ab, rc/sms (dpa, AFP, AP Reuters)

NOT MY PREMIER

Danielle Smith wins UCP leadership race, to be next Alberta premier

By Adam Toy Global News
Updated October 6, 2022 9:44 pm

Danielle Smith makes a comment during the United Conservative Party of Alberta leadership candidate's debate in Medicine Hat, Alta., Wednesday, July 27, 2022. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh


Danielle Smith is the new premier-designate of Alberta and leader of the United Conservative Party.


On Thursday evening, the party announced Smith garnered enough ranked-ballot votes to beat the six other candidates and become the new leader.

It took until the sixth and final ballot for Smith to get a majority of the votes — 53.8 per cent — beating Travis Toews’ 46.2 per cent. Brian Jean was knocked out in the fifth ballot.

Smith said it was “a new chapter in the Alberta story.”

“It is time for Alberta to take its place as a senior partner to build a strong and unified Canada,” the newly-chosen UCP leader said. “No longer will Alberta ask for permission from Ottawa to be prosperous and free.”

Shortly after the results were announced, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau congratulated Alberta’s premier-designate on social media.

“Let’s work together to build a better future for Albertans – by delivering concrete results, making life more affordable, creating good jobs, and more,” Trudeau wrote, also thanking Premier Jason Kenney for his service to the province.

READ MORE: Alberta UCP leadership candidate Danielle Smith says if elected, she won’t call early election

In her victory speech, Smith thanked the other leadership candidates and Kenney.

She invited MLAs and UCP members to govern with “strength and compassion” and to lead the party to an election victory in spring 2023.

Smith said she will be sworn in on Tuesday in Edmonton. Smith is Alberta’s eighth premier in 16 years.

HOLLYWOOD SQUARES

UCP members vote for Alberta’s next premier

UPDATE:

Thursday evening, UCP officials announced 84,593 ballots had been cast. 

 Population statistics | Alberta.ca  

Alberta added 40,253 residents in the second quarter of 2022. 

As of July 1, 2022, Alberta's population was 4,543,111. 

 

Following the first round of voting, Leela Aheer was knocked out of the running with just 1.6 per cent of the first ballot.

Following the second round of voting, Rajan Sawhney was knocked out of the running with just 2.7 per cent of the second ballot.

Following the third round of voting, Todd Loewen was knocked out of the running with just 7.8 per cent of the third ballot.

Following the fourth round of voting, Rebecca Schulz was knocked out of the running with just 8.4 per cent of the fourth ballot.

Following the fifth round of voting, Brian Jean was knocked out of the running with just 14.8 per cent of the fifth ballot.

Following the last round of voting, Danielle Smith won the election with 54.8 per cent of the ballot. Travis Toews received 46.2 per cent.

Smith’s campaign was best known for the Alberta sovereignty act, a proposed legislation that would allow the Alberta legislature to refuse enforcement of federal laws or policies that are seen as intrusions into provincial jurisdiction.

Some experts have warned the act could cause a constitutional crisis. Four leadership hopefuls held a united news conference in early September calling the proposed legislation a “constitutional fairytale.” A co-author of the plan the proposed act came from said the unconstitutionality of the act “is exactly the point.”

Smith has also spoken out against pandemic public health measures, like mask mandates and vaccinations. She has also talked about revamping the health system by using health spending accounts and firing the board of Alberta Health Services, which oversees the front-line delivery of care.

Thursday evening in Calgary, she repeated her promise to “reform the dysfunction of Alberta Health Services and repair our broken EMS services,” adding she will replace AHS management who are unable to “immediately” follow her direction.

Smith’s previous foray into politics was as Wildrose leader from 2009 until 2014. In December 2014, she resigned and crossed the floor with 10 other MLAs to join the Progressive Conservative Party.

She later apologized for the move. Smith did not win the PC nomination for her then-riding of Highwood ahead of the 2015 election.

SHE NEVER LEFT RIGHT WING POLITICS
Prior to re-entering politics, Smith hosted a radio talk show on Corus Radio in Alberta. Corus Entertainment is the parent company of Global News. She announced her resignation in January 2021, citing declines in freedom of speech and wanting to get back to a balance of competing ideologies.

ROFLMAO

2:04 Alberta sovereignty boosting UCP leadership frontrunner’s campaign

Smith intends to table Bill 1, the sovereignty act, but is not currently a member of the legislative assembly. On Monday, said she had a “number” of MLAs who offered to give up their seat in a byelection.

One-term backbencher Roger Reid is the current MLA for Livingstone-Macleod, a riding that includes Smith’s current home of High River, Alta.

Smith dismissed the the idea of running in Calgary-Elbow, a currently vacant seat after Doug Schweitzer announced his resignation earlier this year.

She also said she would not seek a snap election, instead dropping the writ for an election in May 2023.

After her win Thursday evening, Smith said she would meet with UCP MLAs on Friday.

READ MORE: How Alberta’s UCP leadership race works

Ballots went to nearly 124,000 UCP members at the beginning of September, with voting for the new leader continuing until Monday. In-person voting locations were also opened on Thursday in Slave Lake, Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary and Taber, Alta.

UCP president Cynthia Moore said 84,593 votes were cast for the new leader.

Also in the running were former Jason Kenney cabinet ministers Travis Toews, Leela Aheer, Rajan Sawhney and Rebecca Schulz; backbencher Brian Jean; and former caucus member Todd Loewen.

With the UCP the ruling party in the Alberta legislature, its leader is the premier.

A “tribute” for outgoing UCP leader Kenney will take place at the UCP annual general meeting on the weekend of Oct. 21 on Enoch Cree Nation.

Final in-person vote Thursday for UCP members to pick Alberta premier

Recent polling from pollster Janet Brown showed none of the leadership candidates resonated strongly with Albertans.

“I think this leadership race has had a negative impact on the UCP brand,” Brown said on Friday.

“Job number one (for the new leader) will be to earn the trust of Albertans and prove to Albertans that they know what matters to them.”

Mount Royal University political scientist Duane Bratt said the first thing the leader is likely to do is name a new cabinet.

“We’re going to see a new government now. Typically there’s some minor shuffling, but in 2014, after Jim Prentice became premier, he also brought in two unelected cabinet ministers: Gordon Dirks and Stephen Mandel,” Bratt told Global News.

“We’re not just electing a leader who becomes premier, we’re electing essentially a new UCP government.”

–with files from The Canadian Press

What people are reading

Hurricane Danielle set to slam Alberta with Category 5 shitstorm
By Max Fawcett | Opinion | October 7th 2022

UPDATED

UK opens new licensing round for North Sea oil despite environmentalist outcry

Conservationist groups argue that the UK is going against its climate change promises with North Sea oil extraction

The British government opened a new licensing round for North Sea oil and gas exploration Friday despite criticism from environmentalists and scientists who say the move undermines the country’s commitment to fighting climate change.

The Conservative government argues that extracting more fossil fuels from the North Sea will create jobs and strengthen U.K. energy security, and is less environmentally harmful than importing gas and oil from abroad.

"I know it sounds contradictory – but it’s actually good for the environment," Climate Minister Graham Stuart said.

"When we burn our own gas, it’s got lower emissions around its production than foreign gas … as well as supporting British jobs," he told the BBC.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has pushed gas and electricity prices higher and squeezed energy supplies across Europe, prompting countries to focus urgently on securing new sources.

The organization that oversees the U.K.’s electricity grid has said that planned blackouts might be needed this winter if the gas-fired power plants that produce 43% of Britain’s electricity can’t get enough gas to continue operating.

AND UP IS DOWN

Britain's Minister of State Graham Stuart, pictured here speaking at the United Nations General Assembly, on Aug. 1, 2022, argues that oil and gas exploration in the North Sea is "actually good for the environment,".

(AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File)

The U.K. last saw planned blackouts in the 1970s, during an international oil crisis and a series of coal miners’ strikes.

The North Sea Transition Authority, or NSTA, said almost 900 new exploration blocks and partial blocks of the North Sea are available, with up to 100 licenses likely to be issued. Priority will be given to four areas off the east coast of England that are known to contain hydrocarbons and are close to existing infrastructure.

The government and fossil fuel industry say drilling for more oil and gas would not undermine Britain’s pledge to cut its carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

GERMAN CLIMATE ACTIVISTS SHUT OFF OIL PIPELINES TO PROTEST NORTH SEA DRILLING

"Security of supply and net zero should not be in conflict," NSTA chief executive Andy Samuel said. "The industry has committed to halving upstream emissions by 2030 and investing heavily in electrification, carbon storage and hydrogen."

Environmentalists say the only way to limit global warming to the internationally approved target of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels is to stop extracting fossil fuels.

"The government’s claim that burning ever more fossil fuels from the North Sea will help the U.K. meet its international obligations to become net-zero by 2050 has no connection to reality," U.K. Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay said.

EUROPE ACTIVATES TWO NEW PIPELINES, DECREASING RELIANCE ON RUSSIAN GAS AHEAD OF WINTER CRUNCH: REPORT

"We truly have stepped through the looking glass."

AP

UK offers new North Sea oil and gas licenses despite outrage from climate activists

CGTN

 08-Oct-2022
 

VIDEO

Britain has opened a new licensing round for energy companies to explore for oil and gas in the North Sea, despite anger and threats of legal challenges from climate campaigners.

Nearly 900 locations are being given up for exploration as of Friday, with up to 100 licences expected to be handed down to firms, a move international climate scientists say will add to the acceleration of the climate crisis.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency have both said there must not be any new oil and gas projects if the rise in global temperature are to be kept under 1.5 degrees Celsius - an increase that would likely see 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs dying off worldwide.

The decision comes as European nations attempt to tackle rising energy prices amid the Ukraine conflict and Russia's consequent move to drastically reduce gas exports to the continent.

The UK government's own climate advisers stated earlier this year that the best way to help people struggling with skyrocketing energy prices was to stop switch to renewables instead of drilling for more fossil fuels - a pledge the ruling Conservative Party vowed to keep at last year's UN Climate Change Conference.


Britain is offering new licenses for the exploration for oil and gas in the North Sea despite anger from climate activists. 

/Andy Buchanan/pool/Reuters

However, UK Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg said the new oil and gas licences would offer more energy security amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, and would not affect the government's legally binding commitment to hit net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

"Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine means it is now more important than ever that we make the most of sovereign energy resources," he said in a statement.

Bucking the trend

UK climate minister Graham Stuart said that it was also worth reflecting that the UK was in a stronger position than most of its European partners when it came to reliance on fossil fuels from Moscow.

"Unlike them (other European nations) we're not dependent on Russian gas. We produce nearly half of our gas domestically and that's why we should continue to do so while we're burning it," he said.

"I'm confident that the government has done everything in its power, working with [regulator] Ofgem, the National Grid to make sure we're in the strongest possible position," he said.

Stuart added that the government would not be asking people to use less energy, despite a warning from the National Grid, the UK's power network, that homes and businesses could face three-hour planned blackouts this winter.

Such an approach is in direct opposition to what the UK's neighbors have agreed, with most EU nations voluntarily reducing gas use by 15 percent and urging businesses to cut energy use and public buildings to turn down their heating.

"We're not in the business of telling people how to live their lives," Stuart said on Times Radio, claiming that any public information campaign would not reduce the risk to Britain's energy supply.

However, the UK energy supplier and regulator Ofgem did say it was working with the government to reward people who cut gas use at peak times.

Under new Prime Minister Liz Truss, Britain's plan to bolster its energy security has also included lifting a ban on fracking for shale gas in England, despite climate experts saying that new fossil fuel exploration and extraction would do little in the short term to ease the pains of those struggling to pay their bills.

Source(s): Reuters

Like Canada, UK offers new North Sea oil, gas licenses

By Jill Lawless | News, Politics | October 7th 2022

Britain's Minister of State (Minister for Climate) Graham Stuart addresses the 2022 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference, in the United Nations General Assembly, on Monday, Aug. 1, 2022. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File)

The British government opened a new licensing round for North Sea oil and gas exploration Friday despite criticism from environmentalists and scientists who say the move undermines the country’s commitment to fighting climate change.

The Conservative government argues that extracting more fossil fuels from the North Sea will create jobs and strengthen U.K. energy security, and is less environmentally harmful than importing gas and oil from abroad.

“I know it sounds contradictory – but it’s actually good for the environment,” Climate Minister Graham Stuart said.

“When we burn our own gas, it’s got lower emissions around its production than foreign gas … as well as supporting British jobs,” he told the BBC.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has pushed gas and electricity prices higher and squeezed energy supplies across Europe, prompting countries to focus urgently on securing new sources.

The organization that oversees the U.K.’s electricity grid has said that planned blackouts might be needed this winter if the gas-fired power plants that produce 43% of Britain’s electricity can’t get enough gas to continue operating.

The U.K. last saw planned blackouts in the 1970s, during an international oil crisis and a series of coal miners’ strikes.

The North Sea Transition Authority, or NSTA, said almost 900 new exploration blocks and partial blocks of the North Sea are available, with up to 100 licenses likely to be issued. Priority will be given to four areas off the east coast of England that are known to contain hydrocarbons and are close to existing infrastructure.

The government and fossil fuel industry say drilling for more oil and gas would not undermine Britain’s pledge to cut its carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

“Security of supply and net zero should not be in conflict,” NSTA chief executive Andy Samuel said. “The industry has committed to halving upstream emissions by 2030 and investing heavily in electrification, carbon storage and hydrogen.”

#UK offers new #NorthSea oil, gas licenses despite opposition. #FossilFuel #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #Oil #Gas

Environmentalists say the only way to limit global warming to the internationally approved target of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels is to stop extracting fossil fuels.

“The government’s claim that burning ever more fossil fuels from the North Sea will help the U.K. meet its international obligations to become net-zero by 2050 has no connection to reality,” U.K. Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay said.

“We truly have stepped through the looking glass.”

UK Government 'sticking two fingers up to scientists' with new North Sea licensing round

By Abbi Garton-Crosbie@agc_reports

Multimedia Political Reporter

THE NATIONAL, SCOTLAND

Climate campaigners outside of the UK Government's hub in Edinburgh demanding the license granted to the Jackdaw gas field be reversed after it was granted in June 2022

FURIOUS climate campaigners have accused the UK Government of “sticking two fingers up” to scientists as a new licensing round for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea.

The UN and environmental experts have warned that any further fossil fuel projects brought online will have a devastating impact on efforts to limit global warming to 1.5C.

Meanwhile, UK Tory climate minister Graham Stuart claimed that the licensing round will be “good for the environment”.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said that any new projects should be subject to the “most stringent” climate checks, adding that she feared the plan was a continuation of the UK’s “haphazard planning about energy”.

The Scottish Greens joined campaigners in decrying the move as “climate vandalism”.

The North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) will begin the 33rd round of offshore licences, with the UK Government arguing increasing production will boost the economy and energy security.

Stuart claimed a new licensing round for oil and gas exploration is “entirely compatible” with climate targets, and “we have one of the lowest emitting production systems for oil and gas”.

ECOCIDE

A new licensing round has been opened for oil and gas projects in the North Sea

Speaking to BBC Breakfast, the climate minister said: “Actually it’s good for the environment because when we burn our own gas it’s got lower emissions around its production than foreign gas… as well as supporting British jobs.

“Our development is not going to affect our usage, our usage is determined by the framework of the Climate Change Act and the independent Climate Change Committee which informs Government policy.

“So you really can be assured that it’s actually – I know it sounds contradictory – but it’s actually good for the environment that we are going to produce more of our gas and oil at home.”

Licences are being made available for sectors of the North Sea – known as blocks – with the NSTA estimating more than 100 may be granted.

Companies are being urged to apply for licences covering areas to the west of Shetland, in the northern North Sea, the central North Sea, the southern North Sea and east Irish Sea.

However, the FM said there has to be a transition away from oil and gas and accused the UK Government of “haphazard planning” over energy.

Speaking to BBC Breakfast ahead of the SNP’s party conference in Aberdeen on Friday, she said: “In terms of new licences, I’ve been very clear that within the context of that just transition, we’ve got to subject any decisions about further exploitation of oil and gas to the most stringent climate checks.

“I worry right now that what we’re hearing from the UK Government is just a continuation of their haphazard planning about energy.

“In the long term, what they’re doing is undermining energy security, rather than strengthening it, because energy security, it’s difficult, it’s challenging, but the route to energy security is to secure that transition away from fossil fuels to renewables.”

Ruskell said the move was "climate vandalism"

Scottish Greens energy and environment spokesperson Mark Ruskell MSP said that the move was a “brutal slap in the face” to anyone concerned about climate change.

He added: “If this kind of climate vandalism is allowed to go ahead it will spark more scenes of misery and devastation in those areas already dealing with the impacts, and is tantamount to a death sentence for tens of thousands of others.

“We can’t drill our way out of this crisis. Even trying to is totally incompatible with our international obligations. We need to be planning for a future beyond oil and gas, not doubling down on it. That means halting all new drilling and investing in a just transition to renewables.”

Ruskell added that the climate crisis is the “biggest challenge facing this generation” and called on the UK Government to take the issue seriously.

He added: “Every day that the UK government and others spend on these failed, damaging and anti-climate policies is another day that has been wasted. The longer that action is delayed the more extensive it will have to be.”

Friends of the Earth (FoE) Scotland said the UK Government’s climate compatibility checkpoints are a “worthless charade”.

Campaigner Freya Aitchison said: “It is a deeply cynical attempt to provide cover for reckless plans to expand the very industry that is fuelling both the climate and the cost of living crises”

She added: “By encouraging greedy fossil fuel companies to keep looking for more fossil fuels, the UK Government is denying the reality of the climate emergency. It is sticking two fingers up to climate scientists and energy experts who have made it clear that there should be no new oil and gas if we are to remain within agreed climate limits.

“Instead of new fossil fuels, we urgently need a transition to an energy system powered by renewables, and a mass rollout of energy efficiency measures to reduce energy demand.

"With the cost of living skyrocketing due to the volatile prices of oil and gas, it’s obvious that our current energy system is completely unfit for purpose, serving only to make oil company bosses and shareholders richer while everyone else loses out.”

Aitchison also said the UK Government “doesn’t care” about the impact of its decisions on the rest of the world, particularly in the Global South, where the ramifications of global warming are already being felt.

Tensions build in Hungary as teachers ramp up strike action

Pablo Gutierrez in Budapest

 08-Oct-2022

Students, teachers and sympathizers block Margit Bridge in Budapest.

 /Attila Kisbenedek/AFP

School teachers in Budapest say they will continue protesting until the Hungarian government sits down to negotiate following their demands for better salaries and working conditions.

This week thousands of educators, parents and students shut down some of the main streets and bridges in the Hungarian capital, asking the government to hear their demands. Instead of being offered an open dialogue, they say they've received more threats.

No olive branch has been offered to teachers by the Hungarian government, and they say they will shut down Margaret bridge once again if the stalemate continues.

Wednesday's protest drew thousands to the steps of the Hungarian Parliament and some of the city's main streets and bridges. Since the beginning of the school year, teachers have called for better wages - top earners currently make about $1,100 a month.

Hungary's Teachers Union says educators are quitting their jobs, leading to crowded classrooms. Earlier on Friday, students, parents, and teachers occupied one of the district offices of the Department of Education after two dozen teachers received letters from the department saying they would be punished and even fired for participating in Wednesday's demonstration.

"Firing them is illegal because there is no law against engaging in civil disobedience," said Mariann Czédly, chairperson of the Hungarian Teacher's Union (PDZ). "The government is punishing some teachers by suspending one month's salary. Others are being threatened with losing their jobs for protesting for a few hours."

Students, teachers and parents form a 'human chain in central Budapest to protest.

/ Attila Kisbenedek/AFP


Earlier this year, Hungary's government agreed to a raise for teachers, but there's one catch: only headteachers and special education teachers will get the salary bump if the country's economy performs well.

Hungary is facing record inflation and its currency, the forint, is at its lowest level in recent years against the U.S. dollar. The government also says it can't increase salaries until the European Union releases recovery funds.

Teachers say they will continue with civil disobedience tactics and other protests in the city until they are given a seat at the table with the Hungarian government.

U.S. Public Opinion and the Election: Three Values Issues

BY FRANK NEWPORT / GALLUP/ POLLING MATTERS

OCTOBER 7, 2022

This is the second in a series of briefs looking at what Americans want political candidates and elected officials to do about the key issues of the day. The first review looked at the consensus top problems leading into November's midterm elections -- the economy and inflation. This article focuses on three values issues -- abortion, critical race theory and gender identity -- all of which have surfaced in this year's primaries and in campaigning for the elections.

Abortion

Abortion is currently tied for sixth on the list of most important problems facing the nation in Gallup's latest update. The 4% of Americans who mention abortion is down from the 8% who named the issue as the top problem in July, which, in turn, was the highest in Gallup's history. The uptick in mentions of abortion this summer reflected reactions to the Supreme Court's controversial June 24 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Polls that provide lists of issues and ask Americans how important each will be to their vote in November find abortion in a midrange position on such lists. About a quarter of Americans are "abortion voters," saying a candidate they vote for must share their position on the issue.

Abortion is one of the most-researched issues in contemporary public opinion polling. This research involves a number of ways of asking Americans about abortion, with resulting nuances and complexities of interpretations. (Gallup's abortion topics page links to much of our research on the topic.)

Despite the complexities involved, there are several clear-cut signals from Americans, providing direction on the abortion issue for political candidates and elected representatives.

Most significantly, it has been well documented that the majority of Americans do not agree with the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade itself was not a binary ruling saying all abortions in all circumstances were constitutionally protected. The ruling established a basic constitutional right to abortion but also said legislatures could establish controls on abortion in the second and third trimesters of a woman's pregnancy. The big change resulting from the Dobbs decision is to remove the first part of that equation.

The most cogent explanation for the public's objection to the Dobbs ruling, then, comes from a mass of polling data showing that the majority of Americans do not favor an overall ban on abortion, which is now possible given the Dobbs ruling. More precisely, as my colleague Lydia Saad has summarized, Gallup's latest update shows that just 13% of Americans favor making abortion totally illegal.

At the same time, and broadly consistent with Roe v. Wade, the majority of Americans support the idea of restrictions on abortion in at least some circumstances, including in a woman's second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

Thus, if national lawmakers go to the American public for guidance on what to do about abortion, the data would say they (the lawmakers) should pass a law certifying legal access to abortion, but one that would allow restrictions in the middle to late terms and in other circumstances.

In short, it's fair to summarize public opinion by saying Americans want a guaranteed baseline of the right to abortion nationwide, even though they recognize this is different from saying abortion should be legal in all circumstances.

While not the most pressing issue nationally, abortion -- as will be seen for critical race theory and gender identity issues -- could be a so-called wedge issue that affects enough segments of voters to have an effect on election outcomes. Supporting this hypothesis, an interesting Gallup poll conducted in July found that among the 39% of Americans who said they have "felt the urge to organize or join a public demonstration about something," abortion was most likely to be named as the issue or cause behind that emotion.

Critical Race Theory

Today's focus on critical race theory is embedded in the nation's more general historical and current grappling with issues of race and racism. Critical race theory per se is a fairly arcane academic concept, but the term has been at the center of a cultural battle over the general idea of teaching about the history of slavery and racism and contemporary racial inequality in the nation's public schools.

The pushback comes from those who argue the instruction promotes anti-American views or racial division. Reflecting these concerns, legislators in a number of states have proposed legislation banning the teaching of critical race theory and its offshoots -- although, it should be noted, many educators say critical race theory is not in their curricula. President Donald Trump in 2020 issued an executive order banning critical race theory in federal agencies. Observers point to Republican Glenn Younkin's victory in the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election as a reflection of these concerns, particularly in terms of control over what is taught in schools.

There is quite a bit of public opinion data on this issue. A review leads to two conclusions: 1) A not-insignificant percentage of Americans say they have not heard of or do not understand critical race theory; and 2) when asked about critical race theory, the public's attitudes are mixed, but tend to be somewhat more negative than positive.

Americans do appear to approve of the general idea of teaching older students about the nation's racial past, including slavery and its aftermath in today's contemporary society. An NPR/Ipsos poll, for example, shows that over three-quarters of Americans support "teaching high school students about slavery in the U.S. and its impacts." And Gallup polling conducted this past May found the majority of Americans agreeing that the United States government has a responsibility to take action to reduce the impacts of slavery. More generally, Gallup polling shows that Americans worry about race relations, and a majority define the status of relations between White and Black people as bad rather than good, suggesting support for efforts to face the issue.

Pollsters usually don't include critical race theory in measures of the importance of issues for the elections, although the much broader issue of race and race relations is included in most polls and generally is given midrange importance.

Teaching critical race theory certainly could become an issue in specific House or Senate races. Legislators looking to the public for guidance on the issue would acknowledge the nation's past and support efforts to educate students about slavery and its significant and lasting aftermath. But the public appears somewhat wary of the critical race theory appellation and efforts to focus discussions of race on generalized negative views of the nation and its people.

Gender Identity

The American public has undergone a rapid and profound shift in its views of norms dealing with what is and is not acceptable in American culture in terms of sex, sexual orientation, and associated behaviors. As one prominent example, Gallup polling shows that support for same-sex marriage has risen dramatically from 27% in 1996 to 71% today. Americans are also becoming more accepting of sex outside of marriage and nontraditional marital arrangements such as polygamy.

The public's attitude about individuals who change their gender identity is a relatively new focus for public opinion researchers, meaning there are few long-term attitudinal trends. But a number of recent polls conducted by Gallup and other polling organizations have measured specific transgender issues.

The results show that the majority of Americans are opposed to discrimination against transgender individuals, are in favor of transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military, are not in favor of allowing individuals to participate in sports based on their gender identity when it differs from their birth sex, and have mixed attitudes about so-called bathroom bans. More generally, a 2021 Gallup poll shows that Americans remain ambivalent about the morality of individuals changing their gender, with almost half saying it's morally acceptable and just over half saying it is not.

As is the case with critical race theory, a good deal of the focus in recent months has been on the inclusion of gender identity in public school curricula. Advocates have argued for teaching that emphasizes the need for acceptance of variability in sexual orientation and gender identity, while opponents disapprove of this approach, particularly for younger students.

Americans do not favor bans on teaching about gender identity in public schools -- they support the idea generally -- but they appear to be sensitive to the ages at which such instruction is initiated.

A recent New York Times/Sienna poll shows that fewer than three in 10 registered voters support gender identity being taught to students in grades 1-5. Approval, however, rises to the majority level when questions specify that the instruction would be for grades 9 and higher. And other polling shows that -- without reference to specific age groups -- the majority of Americans support the general idea of teaching about gender identity in public schools.

A little more than half of Americans are not happy with the current situation on this general issue, saying there has either been too much or too little focus on sexuality in general in public schools. But there is little direct evidence that gender identity issues will be a high priority for Americans in determining their vote in the forthcoming midterm elections. Recent Gallup polling shows that among the 55% of Americans who are dissatisfied with public education in this country, just 4% mention teaching about transgender issues as the reason for that dissatisfaction, while another 10% mention the teaching of political agendas more generally.

Gallup's latest estimate is that less than 1% of Americans identify as transgender (although that figure rises to 2% among members of Generation Z), so the actual number of people directly affected by government laws and regulations relating to transgender individuals is very small.

But the general public can certainly have strong feelings about civil rights for small minority groups that they are not members of, particularly given that three in 10 Americans say they personally have a friend, relative or coworker who has told them they are transgender. And policies relating to transgender issues can indirectly affect a much higher percentage of the population in some situations -- including the impact of introducing educational material relating to gender identity in school classes.

In summary, political candidates and elected officials can follow public opinion on this topic if they argue that groups defined by their gender identity should not be discriminated against and that all such people should be allowed to serve in the military. On the other hand, leaders would meet with majority approval by emphasizing that education and teaching about gender identity issues should be limited to older public school students.

AUTHOR(S)

Frank Newport, Ph.D., is a Gallup Senior Scientist. He is the author of Polling Matters: Why Leaders Must Listen to the Wisdom of the People and God Is Alive and Well. Twitter: @Frank_Newport

PRAGMATIC PHASCISM

Meloni unlikely to pick a fight with Brussels

Friction can be expected, but the Italian leader knows that setting the country on a collision course with its European partners would go against the national interest.

Giorgia Meloni has repeatedly declared that Italy hasn’t defended its interests strongly enough during European negotiations | Antonio Masiello/Getty Images

BY GIOVANNI ORSINA

POLITICO EU
OCTOBER 6, 2022
Giovanni Orsina is a professor of contemporary history and the dean of the School of Government at Luiss University in Rome.

The victory of Italy’s right-wing coalition, led by Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, is the last step in a transformation process of the country’s political system, one which has been unfolding over the last decade.

With its 2022 election, Italy has now come full circle, as after receiving 44 percent of the votes, the country’s right-wing coalition has almost returned to the level of support it secured in 2008. However, while that coalition was led by Silvio Berlusconi’s center-right Forza Italia, this one’s now led by a right-wing party belonging to the European Conservative and Reformist Group. The Italian electorate remains disillusioned, anxious and diffident, as well as skeptical of — though not necessarily hostile to — the European Union, and this new coalition reflects just that.

The story begins in 2011, with the sovereign debt crisis, the collapse of Silvio Berlusconi’s last cabinet, and the subsequent birth of a Eurocratic government led by then Prime Minister Mario Monti.

Italians came away from those events with two lessons: Domestic politics had failed to adapt the country to the global environment of the 21st century; and the EU was either unable or unwilling to shield Italy from international turmoil.

Thus, in the 2013 elections, Italians reacted by awarding an astounding 25 percent to the 5Star Movement — a party founded by comedian Beppe Grillo in protest of established parties, as well as Brussels. The political system that had ruled Italy since 1994 was in ruins. The populist uprising had begun.

The subsequent 17th Republican legislature, from 2013 to 2018, went by in the vain hope that the 5Stars’ meteoric rise would be matched by a similarly meteoric demise. But in the meantime, the growing inflow of migrants was nourishing a second wave of populism — that of Matteo Salvini, who was reshaping the regionalist Northern Italian The League party into a nationalist and would-be Italy-wide political force.

In the subsequent 2018 elections, Salvini’s the League and the 5Stars secured a parliamentary majority and formed a coalition government. Leveraging national populism and his own leadership, Salvini was then able to siphon off millions of right-wing and politically colorless votes from the 5Stars in a matter of months, and in the 2019 European elections, his party doubled its support, reaching 34 percent.

Eager to cash in on his consensus, Salvini then brought down the coalition government, aiming for a snap election. However, in this, he failed, ruining his political reputation, possibly beyond redemption. And from that moment on, slowly but steadily, votes started to trickle from the League to Meloni’s ideologically similar but more consistent Brothers of Italy. Salvini’s decision to participate in Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s technocratic government further confirmed this trend, after which 5Stars, clearly placed to the left, no longer attracted angry voters from across the political spectrum, while the right-wing coalition returned to its traditional level of consensus, now dominated by Brothers of Italy.


Meloni is a politician of conviction. She’s a national conservative, suspicious of globalization and unconvinced — to say the least — by the way the European integration process has unfolded since 1992.

However, she also knows full well that the European response to the pandemic and Russian aggression toward Ukraine have been a game changer. She is also aware that setting Italy on a collision course with its European or transatlantic partners would completely go against the Italian national interest, which she prioritizes — her cooperation with Draghi during the transition days since the election offers clear testimony to that.

As such, despite the rather ambiguous positions of her allies Salvini and Berlusconi, the anti-Russian stance of Meloni’s government will be very solid — its position on Europe, on the other hand, will be more problematic.

The new government will certainly be unhappy with any attempt to further reduce national sovereignty, and Meloni has repeatedly declared that Italy hasn’t defended its interests strongly enough during European negotiations. As such, friction can be expected, and it will most likely take some time for Meloni to decide exactly how she wants to play the Europe game.

Yet, play she will — and by the rules too — because there’s no realistic alternative for her or for Italy. In particular, she has repeated time and again that, in matters of public finance, the country will not move away from eurozone guidelines.

Meloni won’t be playing the game alone, though, and much depends on how Brussels and Italy’s European partners approach the new Italian government. European Commission President Ursula non der Leyen’s remarks on European democratic vigilance, delivered right before the Italian vote, were a political blunder. French Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne’s comments about liberal vigilance, made right after the vote, were arrogant and unjustified. And it would be myopic if these sentiments persisted.

For the first time since 2011, Italy will now be ruled by a government that’s politically homogeneous and enjoys strong electoral legitimacy. Of course, in Brussels’ view, this is far from the ideal government. Yet, it will still be solidly Atlanticist, and in Europe, it will play by the rules — especially those concerning public finances. This is no small thing.

This incoming cabinet actually offers the possibility of finally closing the gap between Italian public opinion and the EU, while those who wish for it to fail are, in fact, hoping for yet another unpolitical, technocratic government, devoid of electoral legitimacy. However, such a government would only strengthen the already widespread conviction that Italy is no longer a real democracy. It would make Italians even more disillusioned and prone to run after the next wave of populism — one possibly even angrier than its predecessors.

COMMENTARY

For Bulgaria, Borissov’s comeback is no path to stability

The country seems to be locked in a perpetual election cycle, and the cost is conspicuous — but there may be a silver lining.

Boyko Borissov's Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB) is a proud member of the European People’s Party | Nikolay Doychinov/AFP via Getty Images

BY DIMITAR BECHEV

POLITICO EU
OCTOBER 6, 2022 4:03 AM

Dimitar Bechev is a lecturer at the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe and the author of “Rival Power: Russia in Southeast Europe.”

Who won in the Bulgarian elections, the West or Russian President Vladimir Putin? Can Moscow take advantage of the chronic political instability in this Black Sea nation where pro-Russian sentiment runs deep?

These are the questions that have informed the international coverage of last week’s Bulgarian election, the fourth time the country has headed to the ballot box since April 2021.

No doubt, few will have failed to notice the surge of Revival — a populist outfit that swapped its opposition to COVID-19 vaccines for cheerleading Putin’s spetsoperatziya in Ukraine and saw its support double to 10.2 percent, making it the fourth largest faction in the next national assembly.

Yet, what’s really at stake in Bulgaria isn’t a fight between neo-imperialist Russia on the one hand and the European Union and NATO on the other. Rather, it’s all about whether voters are willing tolerate state capture and corruption, or cast their lot with reformists who have the guts and energy to wage a struggle for clean government. And to this question, the latest election failed to produce an answer.

On paper, all mainstream parties in Bulgaria strongly support membership in Western clubs: Led by Boyko Borissov, Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB), which came first with 25.3 percent, is a proud member of the European People’s Party (EPP); their likely coalition partner, the Movement of Rights and Freedoms (DPS), which is backed by Bulgarian Turks and Muslims and is both ready and willing to formalize its partnership with GERB, has a place in Renew Europe; We Continue the Change (PP), which is co-led by outgoing Prime Minister Kiril Petkov, gravitates toward the same liberal grouping; and the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), which joined Petkov’s cabinet along with the center-right Democratic Bulgaria (DB) coalition, is a member of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats faction in the European Parliament; with DB bringing together the EPP and the Greens.

Only Revival and, to a degree, Bulgarian Rise (BV) — a small new party seen as close to President Rumen Radev — could be classified as pro-Russian. And even if one were to add BSP to the count, as its grassroots do worship Putin, more than two-thirds of the seats in the new legislature are still going to “pro-Western” forces.

Similarly, while the Kremlin’s anti-Western narratives do have purchase in Bulgarian society, the public and most elites are pro-EU and NATO too. It’s a no-brainer: The billions in subsidies pouring into Bulgaria and the freedom of movement are the lifeblood of the country’s economy, politics and society. Meanwhile, NATO is the ultimate guarantor of national security, even for those who, like Radev, believe Sofia is better off keeping a low profile in the ongoing war.

The issue is what belonging to the West actually means.

WOKE WALES 

Monmouthshire council urged to invest millions in savings ethically

1st October

By Twm OwenLocal Democracy Reporter

Council urged to invest money ethically

COUNCILLORS are to be advised on how a sustainable investment policy could work to support their commitment to responding to climate change. 

Monmouthshire County Council declared a climate emergency in May 2019 but the authority’s only Green Party councillor wants it to consider how it can use vast sums of public money it invests to support that. 

The council must, by law, hold at least £10 million in cash reserves and it can place between £10m and £16m it holds in reserve in investments. 

The council is also part of the Greater Gwent Pension Fund that holds investment assets of over £3.7 billion. 

Councillor Ian Chandler asked members to agree that it should investigate “how responsibly” it invests its cash balances, develop a sustainable investment policy “compatible” with its recognition of a climate emergency and work with the Gwent pension fund to develop a similar policy. 

The Llantilio Crossenny councillor told colleagues they were only agreeing to see what was possible. 

He said: “It’s not setting out what the sustainable investment policy should be but investigating how the policy could work and to come back to us.” 

The motion was agreed at the council’s September 27 meeting.