Iranian World Cup squad declines to sing national anthem, backing protests

Reuters Published November 21, 2022

Iran players line up during the national anthems before the World Cup match against England at Khalifa International Stadium, Doha, Qatar, Nov 21.

 — Reuters

Iran’s World Cup soccer team declined to sing their national anthem before their opening match against England on Monday after many fans back home accused the squad of siding with a violent state crackdown on persistent popular unrest.

The players were solemn and silent as the anthem was played before the match with England at Khalifa International Stadium in Qatar, where thousands of Iranian fans in the stands shouted as the music rang out.

Some jeered and others made thumbs-down gestures.

Team Melli, as the Iranian soccer squad is known, have long been a huge source of national pride in Iran, but found themselves caught up in politics in the World Cup run-up, with anticipation over whether they would use soccer’s showpiece event as a platform to get behind the protesters.


Iran were trounced 6-2 by England in Monday’s Group B opener, but the drubbing was not enough to silence the Iranian fans, who pounded drums and horns throughout the game.

Ahead of the match, no Iranian player had voiced support for the demonstrations by compatriots from all walks of life, one of the most sustained challenges to the cleric elite since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

“All of us are sad because our people are being killed in Iran but all of us are proud of our team because they did not sing the national anthem — because it’s not our national [anthem], it’s only for the regime,” said an Iranian fan attending the World Cup who asked not to be named.

Protests demanding the fall of the ruling theocracy have gripped Iran since the death two months ago of young woman Mahsa Amini after her arrest for flouting the strict Islamic dress code.

Dozens of Iranian public figures, athletes and artists have displayed solidarity with the protesters — but not the national soccer team, until Monday’s match when all team members remained silent when the national anthem was played.

Iranian state television did not show the players lined up for the anthem before the match got underway in Qatar, just across the Gulf from their homeland.

The Iranian squad could not avoid being overshadowed by the anti-government unrest that has rattled Iran’s theocracy, while other World Cup teams were squarely focused on their tactics on the pitch.

In the past, the Iranian soccer team was a source of fired-up national pride throughout the country. Now, with mass protests, many would prefer it withdrew from the World Cup.

Before travelling to Doha the team met with hardline Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi. Photos of the players with Raisi, one of them bowing in front of him, went viral while the street unrest raged on, drawing an outcry on social media.
‘Show solidarity’

“I have mixed feelings. I love football but with all these children, women and men killed in Iran, I think the national team should not play,” university student Elmira, 24, said, speaking by telephone from Tehran before the match.

“It is not Iran’s team, it is the Islamic Republic’s team.

“They could refuse to take part in the World Cup or even refuse to play if they were forced to go, to show that they are part of the nation, to show solidarity with mothers in Iran whose children were killed by the regime [during protests].”

The activist HRANA news agency said 410 protesters had been killed in the unrest as of Saturday, including 58 minors.

Some 54 members of the security forces had also been killed, HRANA said, with at least 17,251 people arrested. Authorities have not provided an estimate of any wider death count.

Iranians are especially outraged because athletes around the world have been speaking out for the demonstrators in Iran while their team has remained largely silent.

“I know it is their job to play football but with all those children killed in Iran, they should have stood in solidarity with the people. Especially when the England team is going to kneel [in solidarity], how can the national team show no solidarity?” high school student Setareh, 17, said by telephone from the northwestern city of Urmia.

“FIFA should not have included the team because of protests in Iran and the regime’s violation of human rights. That did not happen, so then the team should not have gone in order to show solidarity with the protesters.”

Some Iranian fans who went to Qatar for the World Cup made no secret of their solidarity with the unrest.

They carried banners that read “Woman, Life, Freedom” in support of the protests. “Freedom for Iran. Stop killing children in the streets!” shouted one Iranian woman.

Another Iranian woman with the colours of an Iranian flag painted on her face said Iran is a football-crazed nation.

“But this year,” she said, “everything is different, all we care about is this revolution and for people to get their freedom back, and not be scared to just walk on the street, do and dress as they want, and say what they want.”

In the capital Tehran, some banners of the national team have been burned by angry protesters.

Other Iranians like Zeynab Mohammadi wished success for the team. “I will watch the game with my friends at home. I will pray for my team to win,” Mohammadi, 21, said in Tehran, echoing other supporters who took to social media to cheer the players.

However, pictures of children killed in the protests were widely shared by Iranians on Twitter, with messages such as: “They loved football too, but they were killed by the Islamic Republic.”

“Those children took risks for their country and were killed by the regime. The national team should take risks and show solidarity with the nation,” said Hamidreza, 19, a university student in southern Iran.

“For our nation, for Iran, for all those children, men, women killed in the past weeks by the regime, be our voice in Qatar. Show solidarity if you are Iran’s national soccer team.”

DAWN

Hypocrisy’s penalty corner

Jawed Naqvi Published 

November 22, 2022 

THERE’S been severe criticism, primarily in the Western media, of the gross exploitation of migrant workers in Qatar’s bid to host football’s World Cup that began in Doha last week. There’s more than a grain of truth in the accusation, and there’s dollops of hypocrisy about it.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino brought it out nicely by calling out the Western media’s double standards in what is tantamount to shedding crocodile tears for the exploited workers.

The CNN, unsurprisingly, slammed Infantino’s anger, and quoted human rights groups as describing his comments as “crass” and an “insult” to migrant workers. Why is Infantino convinced that the Western media wallows in its own arrogance?

It is nobody’s secret that migrant workers in the Gulf are paid a pittance, which becomes more deplorable when compared to the enormous riches they help produce. As is evident, the workers’ exploitation is not specific to Qatar’s hosting of a football tournament, but a deeper malaise in which Western greed mocks its moral sermons.

As their earnings with hard labour abroad fetch them more than what they would get at home, the workers become unwitting partners in their own abuse. This has been the unwritten law around the generation of wealth in oil-rich Gulf countries, though their rulers are not alone in the exploitative venture.

Western colluders, nearly all of them champions of human rights, have used the oil extracted with cheap labour that plies Gulf economies, to control the world order. The West and the Gulf states have both benefited directly from dirt cheap workforce sourced from countries like India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the far away Philippines.

Making it considerably worse is the sullen cutthroat competition that has prevailed for decades between workers of different countries, thereby undercutting each other’s bargaining power. The bruising competition is not unknown to their respective governments that benefit enormously from the remittances from an exploited workforce. The disregard for work conditions is not only related to the Gulf workers, of course, but also migrant labour at home. In the case of India, we witnessed the criminal apathy they experienced in the Covid-19 emergency.

Sham outrage over a Gulf country hosting the World Cup is just one aspect of hypocrisy.

Asian women workers in the Gulf face quantifiably worse conditions. An added challenge they face is of sexual exploitation. Cheap labour imported from South Asia, therefore, answers to the overused though still germane term — Western imperialism. Infantino was spot on. Pity the self-absorbed Western press booed him down.

Sham outrage over a Gulf country hosting the World Cup is just one aspect of hypocrisy. A larger problem remains rooted in an undiscussed bias.

Moscow and Beijing in particular have been the Western media’s leading quarries from time immemorial. The boycott of the Moscow Olympics over the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan was dressed up as a moral proposition, which it might have been but for the forked tongue at play. That numerous Olympic contests went ahead undeterred in Western cities despite their illegal wars or support for dictators everywhere was never called out. What the West did with China, however, bordered on distilled criminality.

I was visiting Beijing in September 1993 with prime minister Narasimha Rao’s media team. The streets were lined with colourful buntings and slogans, which one mistook for a grand welcome for the visiting Indian leader. As it turned out the enthusiasm was all about Beijing’s bid to host the 2000 Olympics. It was fortunate Rao arrived on Sept 6 and could sign with Li Peng a landmark agreement for “peace and tranquility” on the Sino-Indian borders. Barely two week later, China would collapse into collective depression after Sydney snatched the 2000 Olympics from Beijing’s clasp. Western perfidy was at work again.

As it happened, other than Sydney and Beijing three other cities were also in the running — Manchester, Berlin and Istanbul — but, as The New York Times noted: “No country placed its prestige more on the line than China.” When the count began, China led the field with a clear margin over Sydney. Then the familiar mischief came into play.

Beijing led after each of the first three rounds, but was unable to win the required majority of the 89 voting members. One voter did not cast a ballot in the final two rounds. After the third round, in which Manchester won 11 votes, Beijing still led Sydney by 40 to 37 ballots. “But, confirming predictions that many Western delegates were eager to block Beijing’s bid, eight of Manchester’s votes went to Sydney and only three to the Chinese capital,” NYT reported. Human rights was cited as the cause. Hypocritically, that concern disappeared out of sight and Beijing hosted a grand Summer Olympics in 2008.

Football is a mesmerising game to watch. Its movements are comparable to musical notes of a riveting symphony. Above all, it’s a sport that cannot be easily fudged with. But its backstage in our era of the lucre stinks of pervasive corruption.

Anger in Beijing burst into the open when it was revealed in January 1999 that Australia’s Olympic Committee president John Coates promised two International Olympic Committee members $35,000 each for their national Olympic committees the night before the vote, which gave the games to Sydney by 45 votes to 43.

The Daily Mail described the “usual equanimity” with which Juan Antonio Samaranch, the then Spanish IOC president, tried to diminish the scam. The allegations against nine of the 10 IOC members accused of graft “have scant foundation and the remaining one has hardly done anything wrong”.

“In a speech to his countrymen,” recalled the Mail, “he blamed the press for ‘overreacting’ to the underhand tactics, including the hire of prostitutes, employed by Salt Lake City to host the next Winter Olympics.” Samaranch sidestepped any reference to the tactics employed by Sydney to stage the Millennium Summer Games.

This reality should never be obscured by other outrages, including the abominable working conditions of Asian workers in Qatar.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.

jawednaqvi@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, November 22nd, 2022

FIFA World Cup 2022: What Budweiser Will Do With Excess Of Beer Piled In Their Warehouse?

Nina Siena / Nov 21 2022,

A last-minute decision to ban alcohol at the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 has left its partner, Budweiser
with a surplus of beer that will go to waste. However, Budweiser said it has come up with a way to clear out its excess stock after it posted a photo on social media.

Fox News reported a follow-up to the shocking decision from FIFA and Qatari officials to ban the sale of alcohol during the much-awaited event which stunned football fans who were set for a long month in the Persian Gulf country. FIFA president Gianni Infantino downplayed the decision, saying “If this is the biggest problem we have, I’ll sign that [agreement],"

The ambiguous post on Twitter had Budweiser playing up on words to attract patrons, "New Day, New Tweet. Winning Country gets the Buds. Who will get them?"

Full details of the promotion have yet to be disclosed, but a spokesperson for Budweiser parent Anheuser-Busch InBev BUD, +0.95% told Marketwatch to stay tuned as more will be revealed as the tournament runs its course. The spokesperson further wrote that Budweiser wanted to bring the celebration from FIFA World Cup stadiums to the winning country’s fans

Infantino placed the blame on the “crowd flows” in Doha, however, the decision appeared to be a resolution from Qatar’s autocratic government as it supposedly tried to appease the conservative Wahabi citizens, who have expressed their disapproval by some events that have accompanied the tournament. Infantino further confirmed the move to be a unanimous decision.

"We tried until the end to see whether it was possible," Infantino said. He continued, saying that fans can survive for three hours a day without an alcoholic beverage. Infantino added that France, Spain, and Scotland were smarter in regard to the ban on alcohol sales in stadiums, and thought FIFA should emulate that policy for the event in Qatar.

Fans will be permitted to buy and enjoy their alcoholic drinks in the evenings at the FIFA Fan Festival. Qatar also puts a strict limit on the purchase and consumption of alcohol, however, its sale has been permitted in hotels and bars for quite some time, outside of tournament-run areas.

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M REBUFFED

Penguin Random House scraps $2.2 bln deal to merge with Simon & Schuster


Reuters
Publishing date :Nov 21, 2022 

WASHINGTON — Penguin Random House, the world’s largest book publisher, and smaller U.S. rival Simon & Schuster have scrapped a $2.2 billion deal to merge, Penguin owner Bertelsmann announced on Monday.

Bertelsmann, a German media group which owns Penguin, initially said it would appeal a U.S. judge’s decision that said its purchase of Simon & Schuster would be illegal because it would hit authors’ pay.

But Bertelsmann said in a statement that it “will advance the growth of its global book publishing business without the previously planned merger of Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.”

Reuters reported on Sunday that the German company was unable to convince Paramount Global, Simon & Schuster’s owner, to extend their deal agreement and appeal the judge’s decision.

The U.S. Justice Department “is pleased that Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster have opted not to appeal,” Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter said in a statement.

Judge Florence Pan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on Oct. 31 that the Justice Department had shown the deal could substantially lessen competition “in the market for the U.S. publishing rights to anticipated top-selling books.”

With the deal’s dissolution, Penguin will pay a $200 million termination fee to Paramount.

Paramount said on Monday that Simon & Schuster was a “non-core asset” to Paramount. “It is not video-based and therefore does not fit strategically within Paramount’s broader portfolio,” the company said in a filing on the deal’s termination

Unlike most merger fights, which focus on what consumers pay, the Biden administration argued the deal should be stopped because it would lead to less competition for blockbuster books and lower advances for authors who earn $250,000 or more.

Penguin writers include cookbook author Ina Garten and novelists Zadie Smith and Danielle Steele, while Simon & Schuster publishes Stephen King, Jennifer Weiner and Hillary Rodham Clinton, among others.

The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit aimed at stopping the deal in November 2021.

In hearings held in August, the government argued that the largest five publishers control 90% of the market, and a combined Penguin and Simon & Schuster would control nearly half of the market for publishing rights to blockbuster books, while its nearest competitors would be less than half its size.

The top five publishers are Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Simon & Schuster and Hachette, with Walt Disney Co and Amazon.com Inc also in the market. HarperCollins is owned by News Corp. (Reporting by Diane Bartz and Klaus Lauer; Editing by Tomasz Janowski, Rosalba O’Brien and Muralikumar Anantharaman)

Spain to approve mortgage support for more than 1 million households

Jesús Aguado
Mon, 21 November 2022

Young people walk past an estate agent in Guernica


By Jesús Aguado

MADRID (Reuters) -The Spanish government will approve on Tuesday mortgage relief measures such as extending loan repayments for up to seven years for more than one million vulnerable households and middle-class families, the economy ministry said on Monday.

The ministry said the new measures, which would be given the go-ahead at the government's cabinet meeting, would be adopted pending final negotiations with Spanish banking associations.

In Spain, around three-quarters of the population are homeowners, with most opting for floating-rate mortgages, more exposed to accelerated interest rate rises.

Under the framework, banks will provide mortgage support for vulnerable families through an amended industry-wide code of good practice. The income threshold has been set at 25,200 euros ($25,815).

Vulnerable households will be able to restructure mortgages at a lower interest rate during a five-year grace period, already set in the original 2012 industry-wide code of good practice, which is voluntary but becomes mandatory once lenders adhere to it.

Grace periods allow borrowers to delay payments on the principal of the loan without being charged late fees and not resulting in default or loan cancellation.

The period for cancelling debt has been extended by two years and includes the possibility of a second restructuring, if necessary, the ministry said.

Vulnerable families that spend more than 50% of their monthly income to repay their mortgage, but do not meet the condition set out in the previous code of a 50% rise in their mortgage payments, can take advantage of a two-year grace period.

The government will additionally implement a new code of good practice for middle-class families at risk of vulnerability, setting the income threshold at less than 29,400 euros.

In those cases, lenders must offer the possibility of a 12-month freeze on repayments, a lower interest rate on the deferred principal and an extension of the loan if a mortgage burden represents more than 30% of their income and the cost has risen by at least 20%.

The mortgage relief is expected to come into effect next year.

($1 = 0.9762 euros)

(Reporting by Jesús Aguado; Editing by Emma Pinedo, Sam Holmes and Muralikumar Anantharaman)

Poilievre blasted during Commons debate on cryptocurrency legislation

Mon, November 21, 2022

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre rises to question the government during Question Period, Wednesday, November 16, 2022 in Ottawa. 

(Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press - image credit)

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre faced pointed criticism from MPs Monday during a House of Commons debate on proposed cryptocurrency legislation — with Liberal, NDP and Bloc deputies all accusing the Tory leader of bankrupting some seniors by promoting products like bitcoin.

MPs used the debate on Bill C-249 — a private member's bill first introduced by Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner — to read Poilievre's past statements praising cryptocurrency into the record and blast him for promoting what some called a "Ponzi scheme" that lost money for scores of investors.

With crypto prices in the basement after a series of recent scandals, Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux said he's surprised the Conservative Party would push now for legislation designed to encourage the sector's growth in Canada.

"How many seniors on fixed income used part of their life savings to invest in something that was recommended by the leader of Canada's Official Opposition party?" said Lamoureux, parliamentary secretary to the House leader.

"The leader said one of the best ways to fight inflation here in Canada is to invest in cryptocurrency. Imagine all those Conservative delegates and possibly others who might have been listening to the Conservative leader?"

"Imagine all the seniors who listened to the Conservative leader?" added another Liberal MP, Stéphane Lauzon. "What position would they be in now?"

Polievre was not in the Commons for the debate.

Bitcoin is trading at roughly $16,000 US — 75 per cent lower than its value in November 2021.

That means if you invested $10,000 in bitcoin at this time last year, you'd have just $2,500 left of that initial investment — an eye-popping loss of value for any financial product.

According to a federal ethics commissioner filing, Poilievre held an investment in bitcoin as of May 4.

He declared an ownership stake in the Purpose bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), an investment that closely tracks the price of bitcoin. If Poilievre still owns a piece of that ETF, his investment would be worth 60 per cent less than what it traded for in May, when he first disclosed the holding.

Pierre Poilievre/Twitter

"The leader is showing a lack of good judgment by not coming forward and saying to Canadians, 'I made a mistake,' that it wasn't appropriate for people to be investing, speculating," Lamoureux said.

Lamoureux asked the Conservative MPs assembled to raise their hands if they invested in crypto after Poilievre pitched bitcoin during his leadership campaign. No one appeared to raise their hands.

Liberal MPs bought crypto as well

But Poilievre isn't the only MP to declare an ownership stake in crypto.

If Lamoureux had asked the same question of MPs on the Liberal benches, he might have seen more raised hands.

Liberal MPs Joël Lightbound, Taleeb Farouk Noormohamed, Terry Beech, Tony Van Bynen and Chandra Arya have all reported some crypto-related investments to the ethics commissioner. Conservative MP Ben Lobb has also declared a stake in bitcoin.

While Liberal MPs raised the possibility of seniors losing money on bitcoin and other crypto products, research from the Bank of Canada suggests the demographic group that likely lost the most in the recent crypto crash was younger men.

According to the Bank of Canada's bitcoin omnibus surveys, roughly 13 per cent of Canadians owned some sort of bitcoin investment in 2021 — an increase from 5 per cent the previous year.

Bitcoin owners were more likely to be male, aged 18 to 34 years old, with a university degree or a high income, the survey found.

'Whack-job economics'

The survey found 25.6 per cent of Canadians between the ages of 18 to 34 owned some bitcoin last year. Just 2.8 per cent of people over the age of 55 had a stake in bitcoin.

NDP MP Charlie Angus said Poilievre has pursued "whack-job economics" by backing a product that has "vaporized" invested dollars in recent months.

Beyond its poor price performance, Angus said cryptocurrencies are a "dark money system" that can be used for money laundering, to fund terrorist organizations and to support gang activity.

"Who else would want a system where there's no checks and balances and where you can't trace where the money goes?" Angus said.

As criminal elements turn to crypto to launder money, some countries, including Mexico, have passed laws that force trading platforms to track certain large dollar amount transactions.

A 2022 report by blockchain data company Chainalysis found criminals laundered some $8.6 billion US of cryptocurrency last year, a number that is likely a low-ball figure because it doesn't include money from offline crime such as cash from drug trafficking.

Angus picked up on Poilievre's campaign slogan — the then-leadership hopeful said he wanted to make Canada the "freest country on earth" — to say the Conservative leader has encouraged "the freedom to swindle, the freedom to hustle and the freedom to rob people of their savings."

Angus said it was "highly irresponsible" for Poilievre to push crypto when he owned bitcoin assets himself. "He fed on the fear and uncertainty of people by pushing a Ponzi scheme," Angus said.

The bill's sponsor, Rempel Garner, said crypto's recent struggles are exactly why MPs need to develop a federal regulatory framework for this asset class.

The bill, if passed, would compel Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to consult with the industry and "develop a national framework to encourage the growth of the cryptoasset sector."

If Canada doesn't act, Rempel Garner said, crypto companies will take their business elsewhere, which could cost jobs and investment dollars.

"I want you to understand what investors hear when they listen to this debate," she said. "They say, 'Don't invest in Canada because politicians in Parliament are willing to take cheap political points.'"

Rempel Garner pointed to Vitalik Buterin, the Russian-born Canadian who co-developed ethereum, the second largest crypto platform.

Much of ethereum's early development took place in Canada, she said, but its operations have since moved to Switzerland because that country has a regulatory framework in place.

"All those jobs, all that capital — it's gone," she said.

Rempel Garner said she doesn't want Canada to lose out on a chance to normalize cryptocurrency because of "partisanship."

Conservative MP Larry Maguire made a similar point, arguing the legislation will help the federal government "protect investors" and establish "guardrails" and "stability" for a multi-billion dollar industry.

"There is no better time for Parliament to start this conversation. We cannot let this issue get so polarized that it gets to the point that it's too toxic to discuss it," he said, adding that it would be "short-sighted" and "thoughtless."

As the crypto chaos continues, Liberals remind voters of Poilievre's praise for bitcoin

Story by John Paul Tasker • Thursday, Nov. 17,2022

As cryptocurrency prices plunge and some of the exchanges they trade on pause withdrawals, the federal Liberal government is eager to remind voters that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre once touted the asset class as a way to "opt out" of inflation.

Cryptocurrencies surged during the pandemic as investors pumped stimulus cheques into the market. But the whole industry faces an uncertain future now that FTX, one of the largest crypto exchanges, is in bankruptcy and its disgraced founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, is facing a series of regulatory probes.

Another exchange, BlockFi, is in disarray. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is also reportedly investigating other major crypto players, Binance and Coinbase, following the FTX implosion.

The result has been massive price pressure on bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies like ethereum.

The price of bitcoin is a fraction of what it was when Poilievre announced in March his plan to make Canada the "blockchain capital of the world" — a reference to the system that records bitcoin and other cryptocurrency transactions.

Speaking at a shawarma shop in London, Ont. that accepts bitcoin as payment, Poilievre told voters earlier this year that "Canada needs less financial control for politicians and bankers and more financial freedom for the people."

"Choice and competition can give Canadians better money and financial products. Not only that, but it can also let Canadians opt-out of inflation with the ability to opt-in to crypto currencies. It's time for Canadians to take back control of their money," he said.

During his run for the Conservative leadership, Poilievre's campaign said he wants to foster "a new, decentralized, bottom-up economy" by creating a more permissive regulatory environment for crypto.

He said he'd work with the provinces and territories to eliminate a "cobweb of contradictory rules" that govern products like bitcoin and blockchain. Poilievre also said he wants crypto to be treated like gold and other commodities for taxation purposes.

And the Conservative leader has put his money where his mouth is.

According to a federal ethics commissioner filing, Poilievre held an investment in bitcoin as of May 4. He declared an ownership stake in the Purpose bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), an investment that closely tracks the price of bitcoin.

'Terrible advice'

Bitcoin is trading at roughly $16,500 US — nearly 75 per cent lower than its value in November 2021.

That means if you invested $10,000 in bitcoin at this time last year, you'd have just $2,500 left of that initial investment — an eye-popping loss of value for any financial product.

If Poilievre still owns a piece of the bitcoin ETF, his investment would be worth 60 per cent less than what it traded for in May, when he first disclosed the holding.

Poilievre's office did not respond to a request for comment about his current bitcoin ownership.

As the crypto chaos continues, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has been calling on Poilievre to "apologize" for boosting a product that has cost some investors dearly.

When faced with Conservative claims that massive Liberal deficit budgets have fuelled sky-high inflation, Freeland has hit back by arguing Poilievre can't be trusted with the country's money after touting a product that has tanked.

"Let's talk about some really terrible advice that was offered to Canadians in the spring by the Conservative leader. He urged Canadians to invest in crypto as a way to opt out of inflation. Now, bitcoin has crashed by 21 per cent over the past week and by more than 65 per cent since the Conservative leader first gave Canadians that reckless advice," Freeland said in question period Monday.

"The Conservatives should apologize today for this reckless policy and admit that investing in crypto would have bankrupted Canadians."

Not everyone has been bankrupted by crypto. An investor who poured cash into bitcoin in the early days of the pandemic — and held that position until now — would actually be sitting on a gain. Earlier investors have fared even better.

And crypto could see a rebound — bitcoin went through a similar crisis during the "great crypto crash" of 2018, only to surge in subsequent years.

Regardless, Poilievre has gone silent on the issue since prices started to crater. He hasn't made any more appearances on crypto-themed podcasts.

In February, Poilievre was a guest on a show hosted by a bitcoin trader who has compared central banking policies to slavery.

Poilievre told the show's host, Robert Breedlove, that he and his wife watch his YouTube channel "late into the night."

"I find it extremely informative and my wife and I have been known to watch YouTube and your channel late into the night once we've got the kids to bed," Poilievre said. "And I've always enjoyed it and I've learned a lot about bitcoin and other monetary issues from listening to you."


An advertisement for bitcoin is displayed on a street in Hong Kong on Feb. 17, 2022.© Kin Cheung/AP Photo

Mariam Humayun is an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Ottawa and an expert in bitcoin and cryptocurrency.

She said some "people in the bitcoin space are very, very sceptical" of politicians that "jump on the bandwagon."

"They use a few buzzwords to sound innovative but they don't do the due diligence about what they're actually supporting," she said. "They project their politics onto bitcoin when this technology is really an apolitical thing."

Humayun said some industry types regard politicians like Poilievre as "fair-weather friends" who are all-in on the product when prices are high but disappear when there's a rough patch.

"There's a lot of people who have been affected and they've lost their savings, unfortunately. Social media has supercharged some of these things. There will be a huge reckoning for the ecosystem," she said of the post-FTX collapse crypto environment.

'He's not naive'

J.P. Lewis is a professor of political science at the University of New Brunswick Saint John and the author of The Blueprint: Conservative parties and their impact on Canadian politics.

Lewis said Poilievre touted crypto in part to appeal to a certain segment of the Conservative membership and win the leadership.

"A lot of leadership candidates say things to appeal to the base. He was appealing to a very specific type of Conservative voter with this crypto pitch. I would say, based on Poilievre's style, it would be very surprising for him to back down. He'll just talk about it less," Lewis said.

"He's a political operator at his core. He was well aware what going on these YouTube talk shows would do for this brand. There were benefits and there were risks. He's not naive."

A number of right-leaning and libertarian-minded investors have championed cryptocurrency — a financial instrument that is loosely regulated in the Western world — as a way to reduce government control over money because the supply of cryptocurrency tokens is not set by an authority like the Bank of Canada or the U.S. Federal Reserve.

With its supply limited to just 21 million tokens, bitcoin boosters insist cryptocurrency is a hedge against inflation at a time when central banks are pursuing policies that dilute the value of cash.

Some of these right-wing investors have adopted the "cryptobro" label, a sometimes derogatory term for people who are dogmatic about crypto and its potential to change the world of finance.

"The question is if there will be political ramifications with a general election voter. Will the Liberals be able to stick Poilievre with bitcoin, with the convoy, with the World Economic Forum theories, and will that resonate with the moderate or non-partisan voters that decide elections?" Lewis said.

"This is an old Liberal playbook — scare tactics. We don't know how effective it will be."

Loblaw contract dispute sees more than 500 employees laid off in Calgary, union says

Mon, November 21, 2022 

A union that represents employees of a Loblaw distribution centre in Calgary says more than 500 workers have been served layoff notices amid contract negotiations.

 (Aaron Vincent Elkaim/The Canadian Press - image credit)

More than 500 workers at a Loblaw distribution centre in Calgary will be out of a job this week. That's according to a union that represents the employees.

Amid negotiations for higher wages, Teamsters Local Union 987 said that 527 out of 534 at the location have been told they will be laid off effective Thursday.

The union has been in talks with the grocery and drugstore retailer since the last agreement expired June 6.

"A portion of the distribution centre workers who earn hourly wages are not only struggling with earning less than the acceptable living wage for Calgary of $22.40, but they are also now facing layoffs," said John Taylor, the business agent for Teamsters Local Union 987.

According to Taylor, Loblaw was offering a "straight money offer" that did not include any rules or regulations around working conditions. He said the company would not change anything the union had asked for that did not involve money.

Teamsters Local 987 rejected the employer's offer on Nov. 3, and again rejected the same offer on Nov. 15 — which was a labour board supervised proposal vote.

In a statement sent to CBC News, Catherine Thomas, the vice-president of communication at Loblaw, said her company was disappointed the offer was "narrowly rejected," and that many colleagues share the sentiment.

"The union's comments ignore that this was a strong offer with wage increases of up to 32 per cent for full-time and more than 40 per cent for part-time colleagues over a five-year term," Thomas said.

"These are some of the most competitive wages in the industry, some reaching more than $33 per hour. To be clear, today approximately two-thirds of full-time Freeport workers already make more than $22/hour, significantly above the minimum wage of $15."

But Taylor says it's not just about the money.

"The working conditions of the language that we had in our agreement six years ago that the company took away … it was removed from the agreement six years ago and we want the language back," he said.

"The offer they made was definitely, I mean, I'm not going to say it was terrible. It was a fair offer. But again, this company, given their success, could do better."

With the rejection of the offer, Thomas said the company is preparing for a work stoppage at the facility on Freeport Boulevard N.E.

She said the company has started to move inventory to other distribution centres to ensure stores can continue to serve customers without disruption.

UK

SIR Keir Starmer to warn businesses ‘days of low pay and cheap labour must end’

SAM BLEWETT, PA DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR

21 November 2022,

Sir Keir Starmer will warn bosses the days of “low pay and cheap labour” must end as he tells them to train up UK workers to end Britain’s “immigration dependency”.

The Labour leader will signal in a speech on Tuesday that he would be willing to accept increased skilled immigration on the path to his vision of ending the “low pay model”.

Addressing the Confederation of British Industry conference, he is to set out plans to “start investing more in training up workers who are already here”.

Sir Keir will vow to be “pragmatic” about the shortage of workers and not to ignore the need for skilled individuals to come into the country if he forms a Labour government.

But he will stress that any changes to a points-based migration system “will come with new conditions for business”.

“We will expect you to bring forward a clear plan for higher skills and more training, for better pay and conditions, for investment in new technology,” he is expected to tell business leaders gathered in Birmingham.

“But our common goal must be to help the British economy off its immigration dependency. To start investing more in training up workers who are already here.

“Migration is part of our national story – always has been, always will be. And the Labour Party will never diminish the contribution it makes to the economy, to public services, to your businesses and our communities.

“But let me tell you – the days when low pay and cheap labour are part of the British way on growth must end.”

Sir Keir will set out Labour’s plans for reform, which include:

– Ensuring all employers able to sponsor visas are meeting decent standards of pay and conditions

– Speed up visa delays to avoid labour shortages damaging the economy

– Introduce training and plans for improving pay and conditions for roles that require international recruitment

– Reform the migration advisory committee that reports to the Government so it better projects future trends.

He will warn that businesses cannot be “more comfortable hiring people to work in low paid, insecure, sometimes exploitative contracts” rather than investing in new technology to boost productivity.

Sir Keir’s speech comes as Rishi Sunak moved to deny plans ministers could look to realign Britain with EU laws.

Some Tories have been angered by suggestions the Government was weighing up a Swiss-style relationship with Brussels.

But the Prime Minister told the CBI conference on Monday that the UK “will not pursue any relationship with Europe that relies on alignment with EU laws”.

Sir Keir is understood to be sticking to his opposition of rejoining the EU’s single market.

SIR Keir Starmer will warn business chiefs to end 'cheap labour' as Rishi Sunak quashes calls to ease migration laws

22 November 2022,

Keir Starmer is set to tell business chiefs to end cheap labour as Rishi Sunak rebuffs CBI calls to ease stance on migration. Picture: LBC / Alamy

By Danielle DeWolfe

Keir Starmer will call for an end to Britain's economic dependence on immigration in today's speech to business leaders, hours after Rishi Sunak ruled out any trade relationship with the European Union that relied on Britain aligning with EU laws.

The Labour party's tougher stance on "low pay and cheap labour" will be set out during the opposition leader's speech to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI).

It comes in an attempt to quell rumours that Starmer's vision of a Labour government would take a looser stance on immigration, more closely aligned to those of former Labour leader Tony Blair.

It comes as Labour's plans come under increasing scrutiny after latest poll figures suggest they've opened up a 20-percentage-point lead over the Conservatives ahead of the next election.

It follows Mr Sunak's statement yesterday at the Confederation of Business Industry (CBI), following reports at the weekend that he was seeking a 'swiss-style' deal with the EU.

Rishi Sunak addressing the CBI. Picture: Alamy

Read more: Iran players fall silent during national anthem after months of anti-regime protests back home

Read more: Prince Andrew 'makes secret visit to Middle East via private jet' as he targets trade role

Starmer aims to convince voters he has reconciled with life outside the EU in a bid to win back red wall voters.

He will tell business leaders: “I want to be clear here: with my Labour government, any movement in our point-based migration system, whether via the skilled occupation route, or the shortage worker list, will come with new conditions for business.

“We will expect you to bring forward a clear plan for higher skills and more training, for better pay and conditions, for investment in new technology.

Asked yesterday about the UK's relationship with the EU, Mr Sunak said: "Let me be unequivocal about this: under my leadership, the United Kingdom will not pursue any relationship with Europe that relies on alignment with EU laws. 

"Now, I voted for Brexit. I believe in Brexit and I know that Brexit can deliver and is already delivering enormous benefits and opportunities for the country. 

"Migration being an immediate one where we have proper control of our borders."

Sir Keir Starmer will set out his vision of a Labour government to the CBI on Tuesday. Picture: Contributor: Colin Fisher / Alamy Stock Photo

Mr Starmer is set to tell business leaders: “Our common goal must be to help the British economy off its immigration dependency. To start investing more in training up workers who are already here.”

“Migration is part of our national story – always has been, always will be. And the Labour Party will never diminish the contribution it makes to the economy, to public services, to your businesses and our communities.

Adding: “But let me tell you, the days when low pay and cheap labour are part of the British way on growth must end.”

It comes as Mr Sunak pointed to having "proper control of our borders" during yesterday's speech.

On the subject of migration, the Prime Minister added: "We weren't able to do that inside the European Union, at least now we are in control of it."

But his remarks came shortly after the boss of the CBI, Tony Danker, called on the government to be "practical" on the issue of immigration and use it to solve worker shortages in the UK.

Rishi Sunak at the CBI. Picture: Alamy

Brexit stopped many foreign workers being able to easily work in the UK and companies are struggling to recruit - especially in industries such as hospitality which has relied heavily on European staff in recent years.

Mr Danker told the conference the UK's labour shortages were "vast", adding: "It's time to be honest - we don't have the people we need, nor do we have the productivity."

In his speech, Mr Sunak said leaving the bloc means "we can open up our country to the world's fastest-growing markets".

He also said the UK could now introduce "regulatory regimes that are fit for the future that ensure that this country can be leaders in those industries that are going to create the jobs and the growth of the future".

A recent poll from YouGov showed the public now think Britain was wrong to leave the EU by 56% to 32%, with one in five who voted for Brexit believing their decision was wrong.

NHS Scotland chiefs' ‘two-tier’ health service proposal is a nightmare that threatens the whole of Britain


THE “two-tier” health service proposed by NHS Scotland chiefs in which “wealthy” patients would be made to pay for treatment is a menace overshadowing the NHS across Britain.

Scottish politicians have rightly slammed the proposal as unacceptable. It would undermine the founding principle of the NHS — that treatment is free at the point of use — and any means-testing would be a slippery slope.

Free treatment would end up being the exception, grudgingly extended to the poorest, like free school meals, one whose recipients would be at risk of frequent political attack by the right as scroungers or freeloaders — as the Conservative governments of the past 12 years have depicted people reliant on social security payments.

But the NHS bosses pitching for the right to charge patients are prompted to do so by funding shortages.

They talk of a “billion-pound hole” in their budget and note there are 6,000 nursing and midwifery posts unfilled across Scotland.

The funding and staffing crises are identical to those facing the NHS in England and Wales, and we would be naive to imagine similarly damaging “solutions” are not being mooted south of the border.

They are the reason A&E waiting time targets keep being missed, and that the NHS waiting list is now seven million.

Those are prompting the emergence of an effective two-tier health service already. The Private Healthcare Information Network reported earlier this year a 39 per cent rise in people paying for private treatment over the past two years, generally to get operated on more quickly.

Private healthcare is parasitical on the NHS, and its growth compounds the latter’s problems. Doctors and nurses trained by the NHS can leave it to find higher paid work privately, while when individual medical practitioners do both NHS and private work a conflict of interest can arise, especially where the NHS refers people for treatment by for-profit providers paid a premium to deliver care that could be done in-house.

Aside from means-testing free treatment, the NHS Scotland execs discussed dropping free prescriptions, a right not enjoyed in England since the 1950s, the restoration of which is seen as a signature achievement of the devolved Scottish and Welsh governments.

BBC health correspondent Nick Triggle notes that “payments are always controversial, but in the 1950s when budgets were tight payments were brought in for dentistry, prescriptions and spectacles.”

But the fact that something has been done before does not make it acceptable. The crisis in British dental cover, with people living with chronic pain or attempting risky DIY dentistry because treatment is unaffordable, illustrates that.

We should not be looking to reduce the number of services the NHS offers free of charge — we need to restore free dental care. It is worth remembering too that prescription, dentistry and optometry charges were brought in to help fund the Korean war, given the likely impact Conservative, Labour and — unfortunately — TUC support for higher military spending will have on public service budgets.

NHS funding shortages are exacerbated by commissioning of expensive private-sector provision, a consequence of a failure to fill staffing vacancies. They are also linked to the extortionate prices charged for certain drugs by Big Pharma, a reason to support the production of generic medicines.

But we also need a serious rise in funding to tackle the Covid backlog, care properly for an ageing population and address the myriad physical and mental health problems associated with the poverty, alienation and loneliness spawned by our sick capitalist society.

A Labour Party that accepts the Tories’ dodgy claims of a £50 billion black hole in the public finances will, like the Labour Party a decade ago that accepted the logic of austerity, end up reinforcing an agenda of cuts that do irreversible damage.

We need a real opposition, even if it must be built up from the streets.

MORNINGSTAR

Are the protests in Iran fueled by a Western conspiracy?

The impact of Mahsa Amini's killing on a global scale, particularly among the Iranian diaspora in the West, is undoubtedly bigger and fiercer than the Bloody Aban protests of 2019.

Jaffer Abbas Mirza 

Published November 17, 2022

Over the last four years, Iran has been jolted by political tremors at increasing frequency.

Starting with what came to be known as the “Bloody Aban” insurrection, a nationwide civic rights protest in late November 2019, initially against rising fuel costs, but which later turned into anti-regime protests.

The protests were followed by the assassination of Qasem Soleimani in 2020 by American forces, which led the country to the brink of war with the US. But it was the more recent killing of Mahsa Amini that has triggered what have arguably been the most significant anti-regime protests witnessed in Iran in recent years.

Some may argue that the recent demonstrations are not as wide scale as the 2019 protests. However, the impact of Amini’s killing on a global scale, particularly among the Iranian diaspora in the West, is undoubtedly bigger and fiercer than the Bloody Aban protests.

Friction pours out of Iran

For one, Amini’s killing has seemingly exacerbated the polarisation between pro- and anti-regime Iranians, with the conflict between these two groups becoming even more visible among the diaspora in the West.

On September 25, 2022, anti-regime protesters turned violent and tried to attack the Iranian embassy in London. The riot police eventually dispersed the protesters and cleared the area. The dispersed mob then marched from the embassy to the location of the annual Arbaeen procession (an approximately 2km distance) and clashed with the procession’s attendees.



More tragically, the same mob later attacked the Islamic Centre of England, a Shi’a religious centre known for its close affiliation with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Similar incidents were also reported in other European countries such as Germany, where at least three people were injured in a clash during a vigil.

While one understands that the aggression on display at some of these protests is rooted in decades of political suffocation and subjugation, there should be no defence for thuggery and violence against ordinary people such as clashing with attendees at an Arbaeen procession that is attended by Shia Muslims from various nationalities, many of whom may have no political association with Iran.

The foreign conspiracy narrative

On the other hand, a group within the pro-regime supporters in the diaspora also echoes the regime’s narrative regarding the protests as being planned by “America and the Zionist regime”.

The Iranian interior minister has yet again alleged that some of the rioters were funded by foreign states.

To be fair, Iran’s paranoia about foreign-backed movements does have historic roots, much of it courtesy of the US. The CIA has admitted its role in the 1953 coup against the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddeq. Similarly, the Carter administration reportedly influenced and helped Ayatollah Khomeini return to Iran.

Thus, US involvement or obsession with Iran’s internal politics has always been a concern and the regime’s ontological insecurity vis-à-vis the West is used as a pretext to counter anti-regime or civic rights movements in the country.

This fear of foreign involvement in Iran’s politics is also at play in the ongoing protests. Several pro-regime observers have criticised some of the protesters’ actions, claiming that they were being encouraged by the West.

For example, videos circulating on social media show unidentified people assaulting Shia clerics and knocking off their turbans in the streets in what has become a new form of protest against the regime. Reacting to the footage, one cleric termed it a ‘conspiracy of the devils’. Similarly, the women-led protests were seen as a Western conspiracy and its involvement behind them.

However, when one reads the writings of Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the country’s first supreme leader, and situates them in the context of the ongoing protests against the regime, one may connect and trace back — the act of stripping off turbans and women’s participation against the regime in response to the state’s enforcement — in the founding leader’s writings.

The purpose of writing this piece is not to create a whataboutery here; it is merely an attempt to situate the protesters’ action in the Iranian political tradition and highlight the duality in response to the protests from the pro-regime observers.

‘Take off their turbans!’

In Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini (1981), translated and annotated by Hamid Algar, the author quotes Khomeini as writing that he was disappointed with those clerics who were quiet and stayed indifferent during the Shah’s rule, terming them ‘pseudo-saints’.

“Our youths must strip them of their turbans. The turbans of these akhunds [Islamic scholars], who cause corruption in Muslim society while claiming to be fuqaha and ’ulama, must be removed,” Khomeini wrote, according to Algar.

“I do not know if our young people in Iran have died; where are they? Why do they not strip these people of their turbans? I am not saying they should be killed; they do not deserve to be killed. But take off their turbans! Our people in Iran, particularly the zealous youths, have a duty not to permit these akhunds, these reciters of “Greater be his glory!” to appear in society and move among the people wearing turbans. They do not need to be beaten much; just take off their turbans, and do not permit them to appear in public wearing turbans. The turban is a noble garment; not everyone is fit to wear it.”

In his writings, Khomeini was particularly targeting those clerics who had supported the regime and referred to them as “evil ’ulema”.

“Any faqih [an Islamic jurist] who joins the state apparatus of the oppressers and becomes a hanger-on of the court is not a trustee and cannot exercise God’s trust. God knows what misfortunes Islam has suffered from its inception down to the present at the hands of these evil ulema,” he wrote.

The act of knocking off a cleric’s turban is considered disrespectful in the Islamic tradition. Ayatollah Khomeini didn’t want to kill the clerics. He wanted to give them a message that people were fed up with the regime and their support for the Shah’s oppressive rule.

Ulema in post-revolution Iran have become a symbol of the state. Ayatollah Khomeini’s writings, particularly on the vilayat al-faqih (guardianship of the Islamic jurist), elevated the ulema’s status, particularly their political standing. “I do not defend the religious scholars because I am a member of that class myself, but because I am convinced that it is they who can save the nation, and it is they whom the people are demanding,” he said.

Therefore, anger against ulema is not because the protesters are ‘anti-Islam’; they are now fed up with that system which, unfortunately, the ulema in Iran are part of and are in fact benefiting from.

I agree that the act itself is disrespectful and condemnable. However, the question is: if knocking off the turbans of ulema is a disrespectful gesture within the (Islamic) cultural context, then how should Ayatollah Khomeini’s call to youth be translated? If it’s condemnable today, was it equally condemnable back then in the 1970s? And is it only the ulema’s prerogative to call other ulema evil?

One may argue that Ayatollah Khomeini changed some of his political positions after the revolution, therefore, this act should be seen in a similar trajectory. I am also aware that some attempted to differentiate between Khomeini’s call and the protesters’ actions, for example, by seeing it through the Manichean lens as a fight between light (Ayatollah Khomeini) and darkness (the Shah dynasty).

Therefore, Ayatollah Khomeini’s call, as the argument goes, was the righteous one. Or some may say that his statements were given in different political contexts. These are different debates and require a separate write-up. Nevertheless, the assertion that the knocking off of turbans and pitting Iranian people against the ulema is a Western plot ignores the country’s political methods of resistance employed by the very founder of the regime.

‘The women of Iran have risen’

One of the major points of contention between the anti- and pro-regime protesters is that the latter view the protests as a challenge to women’s modesty and hijab, and that the Western groups — the media and feminists — are exploiting the situation. Meanwhile, the the former claim that women are challenging the imposition of rules, particularly on the hijab.

However, what remains unsaid is that women’s mobilisation in Iran is not an anomaly in the country’s politics. Women, on both spectrums of politics, have confronted the regime throughout history.

Ayatollah Khomeini himself not only encouraged, but also acknowledged the resistance shown by the women against the Shah regime. He wrote:


“The women of Iran have risen up against the Shah themselves and given a punch in the mouth to him with the cry, ‘We don’t want to be forced into immorality! We want to be free!’ His [Shah] answer is, ’But you are free! The only thing is that you cannot go to school wearing a chador or headcovering!”

The text above shows Ayatollah Khomeini’s commitment against the imposition of ‘immorality’ by the regime.

What I find interesting and see a correlation in is that women challenged the imposition in both epochs. One opposed the enforcement of the idea of ‘immorality’ and the other challenged the imposition of hyper-morality.

No matter what the state calls these protestors, at the end of the day, they are Iranian women who have a history of political mobilisation and challenging the regime.

There is, therefore, a need to see the political expression(s) against the regime within the Iranian political context and tradition instead of brushing it off as ‘foreign encouraged’ practices. Any attempt to dismiss them on account of the latter only takes away the agency of the protesters risking their lives against a state that has felt no qualms about using force against its own citizens.


The author is a researcher, focuses on religion and politics in South Asia with a particular interest in Shi’i studies. He is currently serving as Senior Research Coordinator at the Department of Anthropology, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex. He tweets @jafferamirza.