UK will 'never leave European Convention of Human Rights,' says British premier

Statement marks clear departure from the stance of previous Conservative government, which had often threatened to withdraw from the convention

Aysu Bicer |18.07.2024 - 


LONDON

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Thursday declared that the UK will "never leave the European Convention of Human Rights."

The statement marks a clear departure from the stance of the previous Conservative government, which had often threatened to withdraw from the convention.

In his opening remarks at the European Political Community summit at the Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire, Starmer emphasized the UK's enduring commitment to Europe, pledging that the country would remain a steadfast "friend and partner of Europe."

He underscored the importance of collaboration in addressing critical issues, particularly the fight against people-smuggling gangs.

Starmer stressed that these criminal networks must not be allowed to operate with "impunity" in Europe, highlighting the need for a united front to tackle such challenges.

Speaking at the birthplace of Winston Churchill, Starmer evoked the former prime minister's legacy of liberty and democracy, linking it to the current need for defiance and resolve in the face of new challenges on the continent.

"Today, as a new storm gathers over our continent, we choose to meet it in that same spirit, and we choose to meet it together. And that is the choice of the government that I lead," he said.

He also called for a reset in relationships with European countries, emphasizing the shared interests and the importance of renewing the bonds of trust and friendship that underpin European life.

He reiterated the UK's pledge to support Ukraine "for as long as it takes," standing firm in solidarity with the Ukrainian people and their fight for sovereignty and security.

Flanked by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Starmer addressed 44 European leaders gathered at Blenheim Palace, stating: "The task is urgent, because our security is on the line. Every day Ukraine fights to protect not just the Ukrainian people, but the European people."

Anadolu Agency website contains only a portion of the news stories offered to subscribers in the AA News Broadcasting System (HAS), and in summarized form.

Grangemouth workers at risk of same fate as coal miners, report warns

Experts say Scotland's last-remaining oil refinery 'is clearly at risk of an unmanaged transition as seen previously in coal and steel'.

 Grangemouth is slated for closure as soon as next year.

Craig Meighan
STV

Scotland’s last oil refinery is at risk of an unjust transition similar to what previously happened to coal and steel workers in the 70s and 80s, a new report has warned.

The Just Transition Commission (JTC) said accelerated action and intensive work is needed to avoid a “disorderly and unjust” future for the workers at Grangemouth.

The expert group – set up to advise the Scottish Government on how to cut emissions in a fair way – warned of a lack of effective planning for the site where 400 workers are expected to lose their jobs by 2025.

Petroineos announced plans last year to close the oil refinery and switch the complex to become an import station for finished fuels.

Number 10Grangemouth was high on the agenda when Prime Minister Keir Starmer met First Minister John Swinney in Edinburgh shortly after his election victory.

The Scottish and UK governments have said they are keen to work together and the issue was high on the agenda when Prime Minister Keir Starmer met First Minister John Swinney in Edinburgh shortly after his election victory.

The two administrations are funding the £1.8m Project Willow report exploring how the site can continue to play a role amid the move away from fossil fuels.

The JTC report said that “provided efforts in this area are adequately resourced and approached as an urgent priority of national importance from now on”, the two governments “can each still play a positive role in reshaping Grangemouth’s economy”.

It described a just transition plan for the site as being a “major opportunity to reset relations between industry, workers, community and the public sector so that the energy transition can bring major gains for Grangemouth”.

UK and Scottish governments to fund £1.6m report into Grangemouth’s future

UK energy secretary pledges to leave ‘no stone unturned’ but Scottish secretary says ‘we are not promising anything at the moment’.

But the Just Transition for Grangemouth report added that achieving this “will require an accelerated schedule of intensive work via regular in-person meetings”.

As it stands, it warned: “The likely closure of the refinery in 2025 and lack of effective just transition planning to date means the current path will deliver a disorderly and unjust transition.”

Grangemouth is one of six oil refineries in the UK with the Falkirk site accounting for about 14% of the overall refining capacity.

It supplies almost two-thirds (65%) of demand for refined oil products in Scotland – although it has the capacity to meet 100% of demand.

However, wider economic conditions mean it traditionally exports about 40% of the fuel it produces.

Around 400 jobs are at risk of being lost at the oil refinery.

The JTC said it expects to see a draft plan agreed by the end of September, stressing in developing this there should be “dialogue with workers and meaningful participation of the community and other stakeholders”.

It added that all public money and subsidies given to support the transition must come with conditions – such as those ensuring fair work, community benefit, or profit sharing mechanisms.

Describing the refinery as an “important industrial facility and source of livelihoods”, the group stressed the “just transition plan for Grangemouth must earn the trust of the workforce and the local community”.

Iain Hardie, regional head of legal and external affairs at Petroineos, said: “There is a great opportunity for Grangemouth and the skilled workforce here to be at the vanguard of low-carbon fuels manufacturing, but there are a number of hurdles to overcome and questions to answer before we can map a clear route to that becoming a reality.

“As the JTC report points out, meaningful engagement between industry and government is vital.

“Delivering change will require all stakeholders to work collaboratively to develop complex commercial ecosystems which do not yet exist or are not currently economically viable without legislative or regulatory support.

“As such, we welcome the new Project Willow partnership with our colleagues in the UK and Scottish governments and hope it will enhance our collective understanding of the potential for Grangemouth to play a significant role in developing the low-carbon fuels of the future.”

A Scottish Government spokesperson said it will “leave no stone unturned” in securing a sustainable future for Grangemouth, and welcomed the Just Transition Commission report.

The spokesperson added: “Acting energy secretary Gillian Martin has had early constructive discussions with UK secretary of state Ed Miliband about this over the past fortnight and we welcome that Mr Miliband has agreed to her invitation to co-chair the Grangemouth Future Industry Board Leadership Forum to take this vital work forward as well as their commitment to working with us to secure our collective ambitions for the Just Transition of the industrial cluster.

“We will shortly publish a draft Grangemouth Just Transition Plan, which will include a first-of-its-kind vision for the site, the long term net zero operations we would hope to see take place by 2045 and how both the Grangemouth workforce and surrounding community can benefit from the transition.”

Miliband, the UK’s energy secretary, added: “We are committed to boosting growth through an industrial strategy and to engaging with the workers and communities of Grangemouth and the Scottish Government.

“That’s why we will be immediately funding work to explore options for a sustainable future for the site in partnership with the Scottish Government.

“I will also be co-chairing the Grangemouth Future Industry Board Leadership Forum to take this vital work forward.”

Major rail reforms announced in 2024 King’s Speech

The 2024 King’s Speech outlines significant legislative changes aimed at transforming the UK’s rail services through public ownership, infrastructure development and operational efficiency.

The 2024 King’s Speech, delivered on 17 July 2024, opened the first session of the new parliament following the general election. With a record 40 bills included, several are set to impact railway services in the UK.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill: This bill aims to amend rail legislation to make public sector operation the default for passenger railway services. It represents a shift towards increased public ownership and control of the rail network.

Railways Bill: The Railways Bill will reform the rail industry by establishing Great British Railways (GBR) and allowing rail contracts to be taken into public ownership at the end of their terms or if providers fail to meet performance standards. This seeks to streamline rail operations and ensure reliable service delivery.

High Speed Rail (Crewe to Manchester) Bill: A hybrid bill that expands powers for constructing rail infrastructure between Crewe and Manchester, crucial for advancing the high-speed rail network and enhancing regional connectivity.

Better Buses Bill: While focused on bus services, this bill includes provisions for promoting integrated public transport systems, indirectly benefiting rail services by improving coordination and efficiency.

Anticipated effects on rail services:Public ownership and management: This shift aims to enhance accountability and performance in the rail sector, potentially leading to more consistent service quality and lower fares
Infrastructure development: The High-Speed Rail (Crewe to Manchester) Bill promises significant investment in rail infrastructure, improving long-distance travel and reducing congestion
Operational Reforms: Establishing Great British Railways is expected to streamline management and address fragmented services, creating a more cohesive and efficient rail network
Integrated Public Transport: The Better Buses Bill’s emphasis on local control and integration with other transport modes could lead to more seamless travel experiences for passengers, with improved coordination between bus and rail services

Bradley Martin, Partner specialising in public procurement law at UK and Ireland law firm Browne Jacobson, said: “Britain’s rail operation is hugely complex, with Network Rail overseeing infrastructure and a number of train operating companies running services in different regions of the country.

“The government will take on responsibility for various contractual obligations with third parties, ranging from train manufacturers to caterers, while it will also have to ensure tens of thousands of people are successfully transferred from train operators to Great British Railways. This will present a host of complexities with pensions, salaries, benefits and working arrangements that will have fluctuated between different employers, but must now be standardised.

“One of the biggest challenges Great British Railways may then face is in driving cultural change once those train operating companies are effectively insourced back into the public sector, with the same people working under a new, joint organisational banner.”

TORIES CAN'T MANAGE

UK Government 'failed' public leading to more deaths, Covid-19 inquiry finds

Alasdair Ferguson
Thu, 18 July 2024 

The UK Covid-19 inquiry said there was a 'damaging absence of focus' from the Tory government (Image: Jordan Pettitt/PA Wire)


THE UK Government and the civil service “failed” the public due to “significant flaws” in preparing for the Covid-19 pandemic, a public inquiry has found.

In its first report into preparedness for a pandemic, the UK Covid-19 Inquiry said there was a “damaging absence of focus” on the measures and infrastructure that would be needed to deal with a fast-spreading disease, even though a coronavirus outbreak at pandemic scale “was forseeable”.

A major flaw, according to the inquiry, was the lack of “a system that could be scaled up to test, trace and isolate” people.


The report added: “Despite reams of documentation, planning guidance was insufficiently robust and flexible, and policy documentation was outdated, unnecessarily bureaucratic and infected by jargon.”

READ MORE: Keir Starmer told Grangemouth response is 'critical test' for Labour

The inquiry said it had “no hesitation” in concluding that the “processes, planning and policy of the civil contingencies structures within the UK government and devolved administrations and civil services failed their citizens”.

The Covid inquiry, which is being chaired by Baroness Heather Hallett (below), published its 217-page report on Thursday.

In her foreword to the report, Hallett said lessons must be learned and “never again can a disease be allowed to lead to so many deaths and so much suffering”.

The report found:

The UK “prepared for the wrong pandemic”, namely a flu pandemic. Furthermore, this flu plan was “inadequate for a global pandemic of the kind that struck”.

In the years leading up to the pandemic, “there was a lack of adequate leadership, coordination and oversight”. Ministers “failed to challenge sufficiently the advice they did receive from officials and advisers”, and they did not receive a broad enough range of scientific opinion and policy options.

Groups advising the Government “did not have sufficient freedom and autonomy to express dissenting views”, there was a lack of challenge to what was said, and the advice was often undermined by “groupthink”.

The institutions and structures responsible for emergency planning throughout government were “labyrinthine” in how complex they were.

There were “fatal strategic flaws” in the assessment of the risks facing the UK, including a future pandemic.

Emergency planning generally failed to account for how the vulnerable would be looked after, as well as those at most risk due to existing poor health, and the deprivation and societal differences already present in the UK.

There was a “failure to learn sufficiently” from past exercises designed to test the UK’s response to the spread of disease.

The “recent experiences of Sars and Mers meant that another coronavirus outbreak at pandemic scale was foreseeable. It was not a "black swan" event.

The absence of such a scenario from the risk assessments was a fundamental error of the Department of Health and Social Care and the Civil Contingencies Secretariat.

The UK government and devolved administrations could and should have "assessed the risk of a novel pathogen to reach pandemic scale".

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, “there was no exercising of measures such as mass testing, mass contact tracing mandated social distancing or lockdowns”.

The scenario of an emerging infectious disease reaching pandemic scale and requiring contact tracing as a first step to controlling its spread “was not considered”.

The report found that the UK’s pandemic plan for flu was written in 2011 and “was outdated and lacked adaptability”.

It added: “It was virtually abandoned on its first encounter with the pandemic.”

In her recommendations, Hallett called for a new pandemic strategy to be developed and tested at least every three years, with a UK-wide crisis response exercise.

She said the Government and political leaders should be properly held to account on a regular basis “for systems of preparedness and resilience”.

She also said external experts from outside Whitehall and government should be brought in to challenge and guard against “the known problem of groupthink”.

READ MORE: Labour MPs urge Keir Starmer to drop legal challenge against Netanyahu arrest

There were more than 235,000 deaths involving Covid-19 in the UK up to the end of 2023.

In her foreword, Hallett said: “It is not a question of ‘if’ another pandemic will strike but ‘when’.

“The evidence is overwhelmingly to the effect that another pandemic – potentially one that is even more transmissible and lethal – is likely to occur in the near to medium future.

“Unless the lessons are learned, and fundamental change is implemented, that effort and cost will have been in vain when it comes to the next pandemic.

“There must be radical reform. Never again can a disease be allowed to lead to so many deaths and so much suffering.”

Brexit preparations hit UK's pandemic planning: inquiry report

Helen ROWE
Thu, 18 July 2024 

The Covid-19 inquiry has been examining the British government's response to the pandemic (JUSTIN TALLIS)

Preparations for a possible no-deal Brexit contributed to the UK's lack of readiness for a global pandemic, a public inquiry into the government's handling of Covid-19 concluded on Thursday.

In the first of a series of reports on the UK's response to the global health emergency, the chair of the inquiry, retired senior judge Heather Hallett, laid out a string of damning criticisms.

Her 217-page report found that UK officials had been too focused on a flu outbreak, leading it to prepare "for the wrong pandemic".

The bodies responsible for emergency planning were "labyrinthine in their complexity", advice to government was often "undermined by 'groupthink'", and advisers were not given enough freedom to "express dissenting views", it added.

Witnesses told the inquiry "that a number of workstreams for pandemic preparedness were also paused due to reallocations of resources to Operation Yellowhammer" -- the government's contingency plan to prepare for it crashing out of the European Union without an agreement.

Other factors in the UK's lack of readiness included a lack of parliamentary scrutiny and bureaucracy with a failure to "identify and accurately describe the underlying problems, compounded by the use of jargon and euphemism to disguise... tasks that had not been completed", it said.

The UK suffered one of the worst Covid-19 death tolls in Europe, with criticism levelled at the government of Conservative prime minister Boris Johnson that it failed to take the threat seriously in the early stages of the outbreak.

More than 128,500 fatalities were recorded in the UK by mid-July 2021.

Other criticism included a failure to have enough protective equipment for frontline medical staff.

Hallett called for a "major overhaul" to transform how the country prepares for civil emergencies in future.

Key recommendations included a "radical simplification" of civil emergency preparedness, a UK-wide pandemic response exercise at least every three years and the creation of a single body to oversee the whole system.

The inquiry hearings were held in London in June and July 2023.

Witnesses included politicians including Johnson and former health minister Matt Hancock, scientists, civil servants and relatives of some of those who died.

har/phz/js

UK public 'failed' by governments which prepared for 'wrong pandemic' ahead of COVID-19, inquiry finds

Sky News
Thu, 18 July 2024 



The UK's citizens were "failed" by their governments' processes, planning and policy ahead of the COVID-19 pandemic, a public inquiry has found.

There were more than 235,000 deaths involving COVID-19 in the UK up to the end of 2023 and a report published today says some of the "financial and human cost may have been avoided" had the country been better prepared for the deadly outbreak in 2020.

It is the first of nine reports to be published by the UK COVID-19 Inquiry and examines the state of the UK's structures and procedures in place to prepare and respond to a pandemic.

The 83,000-word document details "several significant flaws" including preparing for "the wrong pandemic".

Baroness Heather Hallett, the inquiry chair, is calling for "radical reform" as she makes 10 recommendations, including a major overhaul of how the UK government prepares for civil emergencies.

"Never again can a disease be allowed to lead to so many deaths and so much suffering," Lady Hallett writes in an introduction.

Speaking after the report's publication, she said: "I have no hesitation in concluding the processes, planning and policy of the civil contingency structures across the UK failed the citizens of all four nations.

"There were serious errors on the part of the state and serious flaws in our emergency systems. This cannot be allowed to happen again."

Key recommendations include a radical simplification of systems, holding a UK-wide pandemic response exercise at least every three years and the creation of a single, independent statutory body responsible for the preparedness and response of the whole system.

Read more: Why damning first report may be most important

The inquiry received 103,000 documents, 213 witness statements and heard from 68 witnesses for the first module in June and July last year, with hearings for later phases expected to continue until 2026.

The report states the UK "lacked resilience" in 2020 and was "ill prepared for dealing with a catastrophic emergency, let alone the COVID-19 pandemic that actually struck".

A slowdown in health improvement, widening health inequalities and high pre-existing levels of long-term illnesses, such as heart disease, diabetes and obesity, made the country "more vulnerable", while public services were "running close to, if not beyond capacity," it says.

The inquiry heard evidence on the potential impact of austerity measures and, while recognising the pressure on politicians to make tough decisions over the allocation of resources, the report says: "Proper preparation for a pandemic costs money."

"The massive financial, economic and human cost" is proof money spent is "vital" and "will be vastly outweighed by the cost of not doing so," it adds.

"Significant flaws" highlighted include preparing for "the wrong pandemic", with the focus on a flu pandemic "inadequate" for the global pandemic that struck, the inquiry found.

The report also says the institutions and structures responsible for emergency planning were "labyrinthine in their complexity", while the UK's sole pandemic strategy from 2011 was "outdated and lacked adaptability" and was "virtually abandoned" on its first encounter with the pandemic.

The lack of "a system that could be scaled up to test, trace and isolate" people was highlighted as a major flaw, while advice to ministers was often undermined by "groupthink".

"The inquiry has no hesitation in concluding that the processes, planning and policy of the civil contingency structures within the UK government and devolved administrations and civil services failed their citizens," the report says.

Lady Hallett said all her recommendations must be implemented to prepare for a future pandemic, which could be "even more transmissible and lethal" and "is likely to occur in the near to medium future".

"Unless the lessons are learned and fundamental change is implemented, the human and financial cost and sacrifice of the COVID-19 pandemic will have been in vain," she said.

"The harrowing accounts of loss and grief given by the bereaved witnesses and others who suffered during the pandemic serve to remind us why there must be radical reform."

Covid Inquiry's Damning Report Says Government 'Failed Its Citizens' By Planning For 'Wrong Pandemic'

Kate Nicholson

HUFFPOST
Thu, 18 July 2024 

Jeremy Hunt, Matt Hancock and Baroness Hallett Getty/BBC News

The government “failed its citizens” with its insufficient and outdated planning for a pandemic, the first report from the Covid Inquiry has claimed.

The 217-page report has found that, despite planning for a flu outbreak, “our preparedness and resilience was not adequate for the global pandemic that occurred”.

The inquiry suggested the UK had been planning for the “wrong pandemic”, and said the former health secretaries – Jeremy Hunt and Matt Hancock – failed to fix flaws in contingency planning before the pandemic hit.

It also slammed the country’s “labyrinthine” emergency planning, saying the approach to risk assessment was “flawed”.

“The UK government’s outdated pandemic strategy, developed in 2011, was not flexible enough to adapt when faced with the pandemic in 2020,” the report claimed.

It added: “There was a failure to fully learn from past civil emergency exercises and outbreaks of diseases.”

Emergency planning “failed to put enough consideration into existing health and social inequalities”, according to the report.

It claimed there was a “lack of attention” to the systems that would help test, trace and isolate the disease, while policy documents were “full of jargon and overly complex”.

The report took aim at the ministers, too, saying they “often failed to challenge the advice they did get” while their advisers “lacked freedom” to express their differing opinions, often leading to “groupthink”.

Ultimately, it concluded: “If we had been better prepared, we could have avoided some of the massive financial, economic and human cost of the Covid-19 pandemic.”

It recommended a “radical simplification” of the civil emergency preparedness and resilience systems, and “streamlining the current bureaucracy”.

When announcing the report, the chair of the inquiry Baroness Hallett added that the “UK lacked resilience” in 2020.

She noted that the country had high pre-existing levels of illness and general levels of ill health at the time as well, making it more vulnerable to the outbreak of disease.

Hallett also noted that it is a question of not if but when the next pandemic will hit – and are we ready?

She said another pandemic would be “more transmissible and lethal” and likely to occur in the near to medium future.

The inquiry was launched in 2022 by then-PM Boris Johnson, and meant to examine the decision making across the country.

This report is the first of at least nine expected.

It’s not known how long the inquiry will last, as hearings are expected to continue until at least next year.

COVID report finds government 'failed' the public

UK 'prepared for the wrong pandemic', COVID inquiry finds.

Andy Wells
·Freelance Writer
Updated Thu, 18 July 2024 


A person writes on The National Covid Memorial Wall, dedicated to those who lost their lives to COVID-19. (Getty Images)


The first report from the UK COVID-19 Inquiry has found the government "failed" the public, due to “significant flaws” in preparing for the pandemic.

The COVID inquiry, which is being chaired by Baroness Heather Hallett, published its 217-page report on Thursday, which found the UK "prepared for the wrong pandemic" – focusing on flu rather than a coronavirus pandemic.

In her foreword to the report, she said lessons must be learned and “never again can a disease be allowed to lead to so many deaths and so much suffering”. A major flaw, according to the inquiry, was the lack of “a system that could be scaled up to test, trace and isolate” people.

The report added: “Despite reams of documentation, planning guidance was insufficiently robust and flexible, and policy documentation was outdated, unnecessarily bureaucratic and infected by jargon.”

The inquiry said it had “no hesitation” in concluding that the “processes, planning and policy of the civil contingencies structures within the UK government and devolved administrations and civil services failed their citizens”.

Academics have said it is a question of “when not if” another pandemic will hit, so it is hoped that recommendations, if implemented, could put the UK in a better starting place to face a new and unknown disease – known by many as Disease X.

There were more than 235,000 deaths involving COVID in the UK up to the end of 2023. The overall inquiry is reportedly expected to run for around seven years.
What is the COVID report?

The first report looked into the UK’s handling of the pandemic, including how it prepared for it and how it responded once COVID began to spread.

Following the report's release on Thursday, Hallett said: “If the reforms I recommend are implemented, the nation will be more resilient and better able to avoid the terrible losses and costs to society that the COVID-19 pandemic brought.”

A briefing is set to take place at the National COVID Memorial Wall following the publication of the report. (PA)

When did it come out?

The report was published at 12pm on Thursday, 18 July. Hallett's findings were live-streamed on the inquiry’s YouTube channel.

At 3pm, the COVID-19 Families for Justice, the BMA and TUC will hold a briefing at the National COVID Memorial Wall to react to the findings.

What is in the report?

The report has outlined its initial findings based on several modules that were looked at throughout the inquiry. These include the specific aspects of the pandemic response – resilience and preparedness, decision-making and political governance and the impact of the pandemic on healthcare.

The report found that in the years leading up to the pandemic, “there was a lack of adequate leadership, coordination and oversight”. Ministers also “failed to challenge sufficiently the advice they did receive from officials and advisers”, and they did not receive a broad enough range of scientific opinion and policy options.

It also found that groups advising the government “did not have sufficient freedom and autonomy to express dissenting views”, there was a lack of challenge to what was said, and the advice was often undermined by “groupthink”.

Additionally, the report found that the institutions and structures responsible for emergency planning throughout government were “labyrinthine” in how complex they were.

Flaws included emergency planning not accounting for how the vulnerable would be looked after, "failure to learn sufficiently" from past exercises designed to test the country's response to the spread of disease, and failures to assess pandemic risks facing the UK.

The “recent experiences of Sars and Mers meant that another coronavirus outbreak at pandemic scale was foreseeable," the report said.

"It was not a black swan event. The absence of such a scenario from the risk assessments was a fundamental error of the Department of Health and Social Care and the Civil Contingencies Secretariat. The UK government and devolved administrations could and should have assessed the risk of a novel pathogen to reach pandemic scale”.

The UK's pandemic plan for flu was written in 2011 and was described by the report as "outdated".

In her recommendations, Hallett called for a new pandemic strategy to be developed and tested at least every three years, with a UK-wide crisis response exercise.

She said the government and political leaders should be properly held to account on a regular basis “for systems of preparedness and resilience”.

Inquiry chair Baroness Heather Hallett will report on how well the UK was able to face a deadly outbreak in the run up to 2020. (UK COVID-19 Inquiry/Getty)

Who was named?

Jeremy Hunt and Matt Hancock, both former health secretaries, were named by Hallett as failing to address contingency planning flaws ahead of the pandemic.

The UK was “dangerously mistaken” to believe that it was one of the best prepared countries in the world to respond to a pandemic, Hallett said.

Former health secretary Matt Hancock gave evidence to the COVID inquiry. (Getty)

In 2019, it was widely believed in Britain and abroad that the UK was “not only properly prepared but was one of the best-prepared countries in the world to respond to a pandemic,” she said.

“This belief was dangerously mistaken. In reality, the UK was ill-prepared for dealing with the whole-system civil emergency of a pandemic, let alone the coronavirus pandemic that actually struck.

Hunt told the inquiry that he was part of “groupthink” when he was health secretary, leading to a “narrowness of thinking” that failed to expand UK pandemic preparedness beyond planning for a flu outbreak.




Hancock and Hunt failed to prepare UK for pandemic, Covid inquiry finds
Robert Booth Social affairs correspondent

Thu, 18 July 2024

Campaigners from the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group outside the inquiry last summer.Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images


The former health secretaries Jeremy Hunt and Matt Hancock have been criticised for their failure to better prepare the UK for the pandemic in a damning first report from the Covid inquiry that calls for a major overhaul in how the government prepares for civil emergencies.

Hunt, who was the health secretary from 2012-18, and Hancock, who took over until 2021, were named by the chair to the inquiry, Heather Hallett, for failing to rectify flaws in contingency planning ahead of the pandemic, which claimed more than 230,000 lives in the UK.

The government had focused largely on the threat of an influenza outbreak despite the fact that coronaviruses in Asia and the Middle East in the preceding years meant “another coronavirus outbreak at a pandemic scale was foreseeable” and to overlook that was “a fundamental error”.

“It was not a black swan event,” Lady Hallett said in a 240-page report that concluded: “The processes, planning and policy of the civil contingency structures within the UK government and devolved administrations and civil services failed their citizens.

“Never again can a disease be allowed to lead to so many deaths and so much suffering.”

Among the former senior court of appeal judge’s recommendations were:

The leader or deputy leader of each of the four nations should chair a cabinet-level committee responsible for civil emergency preparedness.


A UK-wide pandemic response exercise should be run at least every three years and a new UK-wide, whole-system civil emergency strategy be put in place.


External “red teams” should regularly challenge the principles, evidence and advice on emergency plans.


An independent statutory body should be established to advise the UK government and devolved administrations, and consult with voluntary groups and council-based directors of public health on civil emergency preparedness and response.

The findings about the UK’s structures and procedures in place to prepare for and respond to a pandemic are the first from the statutory inquiry into Covid-19 and are based on six weeks of hearings last summer as well as the disclosure of thousands of documents.

The report was published at the inquiry hearing rooms in west London where families who lost loved ones gathered to mark what they described as “a huge milestone”.

Related: Hubris and preparing for wrong type of pandemic: five key takeaways from Covid inquiry verdict

Thousands of bereaved families had campaigned for a public inquiry before it was announced by Boris Johnson in May 2021. At least nine more reports are due to be published on a rolling basis in the next two to three years as government, health systems, schools, councils, scientists and economists continue to grapple with the consequences of the deadly pandemic.

Hallett also said preparations for a no-deal Brexit caused work on pandemic preparedness to be paused.

In the years preceding the Covid-19 outbreak, “there had been a slowdown in health improvement, and health inequalities had widened. Public services were running close to, if not beyond capacity.

“If the reforms I recommend are implemented, the nation will be more resilient and better able to avoid the terrible losses and costs to society that the Covid-19 pandemic brought,” she said. “I expect all my recommendations to be acted on … I, and my team, will be monitoring this closely.”

There was implicit criticism of George Osborne, the chancellor from 2010-16, for the Treasury failing to plan for non-economic shocks. Hallett said it could have “identified, in advance … major economic policy options that could be deployed in the event of a pandemic”.

Osborne had told the inquiry “there was no planning done by the UK Treasury or indeed as far as I am aware, any western treasury, for asking the entire population to stay at home for months and months on end”.

Hallett said that had the UK been better prepared some of the human and financial cost may have been avoided.

“Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, there was no ministerial leadership within the UK government and devolved administrations that could consider strategy, direct policy and make decisions across the whole of government to prepare for and build resilience to whole-system civil emergencies,” she said.

Key flaws in preparedness included:

The UK being prepared for the wrong pandemic: influenza. When Hancock became health secretary in July 2018 his day one briefing said: “Pandemic flu is the government’s highest risk”.


The institutions responsible for emergency planning being “labyrinthine in their complexity”.


The government’s sole pandemic strategy (for flu) being outdated – it was from 2011 – and lacking adaptability.


A failure to appreciate the impact of the pandemic and the response to it on ethnic minority communities, and people in poor health and with other vulnerabilities.


A failure to learn from earlier civil emergency exercises and disease outbreaks.


A “damaging absence of focus” on systems such as test, trace and isolate that could be scaled up.


A lack of adequate leadership in the preceding years, with ministers, untrained in civil contingencies, not being presented with a broad range of scientific opinion. They also failed to sufficiently challenge the advice they got, which in any event was beset by “groupthink”.

On lockdowns, Hallett highlighted Hancock’s evidence that the standing 2011 flu strategy was not for preventing a pandemic having a disastrous effect, but “a strategy of dealing with the disastrous effect of a pandemic”. The strategy gave no consideration to legally mandated lockdowns as a response and Hallett said they must in future “be considered properly in advance of a novel infectious disease outbreak” alongside ways to “prevent a lockdown”.

She said all health secretaries who adhered to the 2011 strategy, which included Hunt, bore responsibility “for failing to have these flaws examined and rectified”.

“This includes Mr Hancock, who abandoned the strategy when the pandemic struck, by which time it was too late to have any effect on preparedness and resilience.”

Hancock had told the inquiry he was “assured that the UK was one of the best placed countries in the world for responding to a pandemic” and that he viewed the World Health Organization, which ranked the UK as a world leader, as “an authoritative source”.

Hallett said “there were a great number of ministers who could have done more by asking questions about it. Mr Hunt accepted that ‘collectively we didn’t put anything like the time and effort and energy’ into understanding the dangers of pathogens and challenging the consensus. This inquiry agrees.”

Former government ministers who were cross-examined in this first module of the inquiry on the UK’s resilience and preparedness included the prime minister, chancellor and health secretary in the years before the pandemic – David Cameron, Osborne and Hunt respectively – and the health secretary, chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Cabinet Office minister who were in charge immediately before and during Covid – Hancock, Michael Gove and Oliver Dowden.

Even before the findings were released the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group was calling for urgent reforms from the new Labour government, including the appointment of a secretary of state for resilience and civil emergencies; a standing scientific committee on pandemics, crisis training for ministers and officials, and the establishment of a “red team” to challenge pandemic preparations.

A spokesperson for the group said: “Plans for a pandemic were fatally inadequate; they were outdated, poorly communicated across the government, disregarded the impact of inequalities and were primarily concerned with pandemic flu. Such pandemic planning as there was did not address inequalities, and nothing was done to mitigate vulnerabilities caused by structural discrimination, institutional racism or health inequalities. Our loved ones, colleagues and communities paid the price for that failure.”

The Covid inquiry is to produce a report on political decision-making, and evidence will be taken this autumn on the impact of the pandemic on the health systems of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Next year witnesses will be asked about vaccines and therapeutics. Investigations are under way on: procurement, the test, trace and isolate system, and the care sector. Future investigations into children and young people, and the economic response have been announced.

Trump's got big problems with Big Tech, and Zuckerberg is at the top of his list right now

Kelsey Vlamis and Kwan Wei Kevin Tan 

Jul 17, 2024

BUSINESS INSIDER

Trump recently threatened to jail Mark Zuckerberg if he is elected president in November. 

Win McNamee/Getty Images; Alex Wong/Getty Images

Trump name-dropped Mark Zuckerberg in a Bloomberg Businessweek interview published Tuesday.

Trump said he was in favor of TikTok because it competes with Zuckerberg's platforms.
Last week, Trump threatened to jail Zuckerberg if he's elected in November.

Former President Donald Trump can't seem to stop himself from taking every given opportunity to bash Mark Zuckerberg.

The latest shot at the Facebook founder and Meta CEO came in an interview that Trump gave to Bloomberg Businessweek, published on Tuesday.

The wide-ranging interview, which took place in late June, covered Trump's opinions on the economy, foreign policy, and his views on several CEOs.

While he praised Apple CEO Tim Cook and JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon, Trump railed against Big Tech companies, calling them "too big" and "too powerful."

"I don't want to hurt those companies. But I don't want them destroying our youth, either," Trump said.

Trump emphasized that while he didn't want to destroy Big Tech companies because they're important for competing against other countries, he believed some guardrails still needed to be implemented.

"If you go after them very violently, you can destroy them," Trump said. "I don't want to destroy them. I want them to thrive."

"But I don't want them to influence elections. I don't want them to destroy children when children are, you know, committing suicide all over the country, which has been happening," he added, seemingly referencing Zuckerberg's appearance at a dramatic Senate hearing in January.

During the hearing, Zuckerberg made a rare apology to the families who blamed social media abuse for their children's deaths.

"I'm sorry for everything you have all been through. No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered," Zuckerberg told the families in attendance.

Although Trump suggested that he would take a cautious approach to what he calls a "complex situation," he didn't sound like he would exercise that same nuance on Facebook.

"Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm for TikTok because you need competition," Trump told Bloomberg. "If you don't have TikTok, you have Facebook and Instagram, and that's, you know, that's Zuckerberg."

Representatives for Trump and Meta didn't immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.
No love lost

The GOP presidential nominee has long been critical of the Meta chief.



Biden campaign calls Meta's reinstatement of Trump accounts 'a direct attack on our safety and our democracy'



Donald Trump threatens to send Mark Zuckerberg to prison if he is elected

Last week, Trump threatened to put Zuckerberg in jail after accusing him of committing election fraud.

"All I can say is that if I'm elected President, we will pursue Election Fraudsters at levels never seen before, and they will be sent to prison for long periods of time," Trump said in Truth Social post on July 9.

"We already know who you are. DON'T DO IT! ZUCKERBUCKS, be careful!" he added.

The feud between the two seems to stem from Meta's decision to bar Trump from the platform following the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The ban was lifted in early 2023.

"All of a sudden, I went from No. 1 to having nobody," Trump said in his interview with Bloomberg, adding that he now relies on his own platform, Truth Social.

Zuckerberg's tense relationship with Trump contrasts starkly with that of his Big Tech counterparts, some of whom have gone all in on Trump.

Zuckerberg's tense relationship with Trump contrasts starkly with his peers, some of whom — including Elon Musk, fellow PayPal mafia member David Sacks, and venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz —have gone all in on Trump.

Musk, in fact, gave his endorsement just minutes after the failed assassination attempt on Trump on Saturday.

"I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery," Musk wrote in an X post.

For what it's worth, Zuckerberg also commented on the shooting, saying that he was "praying for a quick recovery for President Trump."

"This is such a sad day for our country. Political violence undermines democracy and must always be condemned," Zuckerberg wrote in a Threads post.

On Friday, Meta announced that it was removing the remaining restrictions and penalties it had imposed on Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts.

Meta said the decision took into account Trump's formal nomination as the GOP's presidential candidate, which took place on Monday.

"In assessing our responsibility to allow political expression, we believe that the American people should be able to hear from the nominees for President on the same basis," Meta's president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, said in a blog post.

EXPLAINER

Is RFK Jr truly independent?

A leaked video of a call with Donald Trump has reopened a debate on where the Kennedy scion stands ahead of the November US election.

Supporters of independent US presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr protest against his exclusion from the first presidential debate, outside CNN's West Coast headquarters in Burbank, California [File: Mike Blake/Reuters]

By Lorraine Mallinder
Published On 17 Jul 2024
AL JAZEERA

Robert F Kennedy Jr, a member of America’s most famous – and Democratic – political family, is running as an independent candidate in this year’s presidential election. But his independence was called into question this week after the leaking of a conversation between him and Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Last October, Kennedy dropped out of the Democratic primary race against incumbent President Joe Biden to launch what appeared to be a quixotic independent bid for the presidency.

Both Biden and Trump were eager to crush the freewheeler’s bid, depicting him as a dangerous ally of the opposite camp, both lobbing accusations of him being an election “plant” or “spoiler”.

Now, Democrats are alleging that the leaked conversation proves an alliance between RFK and Trump. So what’s going on? Is RFK working with Team Trump or is he truly independent? Where does he stand on key issues – and does he align more with Republicans or with Democrats?

What happened during the call?

During the chat, which took place following an assassination attempt on Trump over the weekend, the Republican nominee appeared to be coaxing Kennedy to join his campaign.

“I would love you to do something – and I think it would be so good for you and so big for you,” said Trump, audible over speakerphone. “We’re gonna win.”

“Yeah,” replied Kennedy.

Aside from references to bringing Kennedy onto his side – “We’re way ahead of the guy,” Trump said, referring to Biden – the Republican nominee also appeared to be playing to Kennedy’s anti-vaxxer views.

“When you feed a baby, Bobby,” Trump said, “a vaccination that is like 38 different vaccines, and it looks like it’s meant for a horse, not a, you know, 10-pound or 20-pound baby … and then you see the baby all of a sudden starting to change radically.

“And then you hear that it doesn’t have an impact, right? But you and I talked about that a long time ago.”

Trump also spoke to Kennedy about Saturday’s assassination attempt, saying that the bullet that hit his ear “felt like a giant – like the world’s largest mosquito”.

(SOME SAY IT WAS SHARDS OF THE TELEPROMPTER)

But what was the call really about?

The call was an attempt to “neutralise or co-opt RFK so he doesn’t syphon off potential Trump voters”, Steffen Schmidt, professor emeritus in the department of political science at Iowa State University told Al Jazeera. “He’s using The Art of the Deal tactic to gain that small but important political ground.”

Melissa Smith, author of the 2022 book, Third Parties, Outsiders, and Renegades, agreed.

“The video seemed to be more of Trump trying to sway Kennedy to endorse his campaign,” she said.

“Kennedy is focusing his attention on fundraising and trying to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states, which is a very expensive task. His fundraising has been slow recently, and that makes him look more vulnerable to the other campaigns,” Smith said.
Did Trump and RFK Jr also meet?

They did, apparently on Monday, before the start of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, hours before the Republican nominee announced Ohio Senator JD Vance as his pick for vice president.

Politico reported the meeting that day, with claims from sources that Trump had discussed the possibility of Kennedy supporting his campaign.

Seeking to dispel reports, Kennedy came clean on Monday about his “meeting this morning” with Trump, underlining that they had discussed “national unity” and that he hoped to also meet Democratic leaders to discuss the same topic.
Advertisement

“No, I am not dropping out of the race,” he said.

Who is RFK Jr?

A member of the Kennedy family, Robert Francis Kennedy Jr is a son of US Attorney General and Senator Robert F Kennedy, and a nephew of US President John F Kennedy and Senator Ted Kennedy.

Kennedy ditched the Democrats last year after it became clear that his long-shot primary bid was unlikely to succeed.

Since then, he has campaigned as an independent, hawking a mind-bending brand of left- and right-wing politics – largely liberal on issues like abortion, while endorsing libertarian free-market solutions on the environment, and peddling conspiracy theories on vaccines.

Amid a national mood of political disenchantment, the longtime environmental lawyer and anti-vaccine activist has projected himself as a political outsider, blasting “corporate kleptocracy”.

Could he be teaming up with Trump?

“He could be or not … I don’t think he has a road map,” said Schmidt, speaking about Kennedy. “He’s a ship in search of a port and at this point, I don’t think he himself even knows where he wants to tie up and disembark.”

Unlike many other politicians who ultimately need to fall in line with either Democrats or Republicans, Kennedy “is both dependent on his own cult following of anti-vaxxers and environmentalists and independent in that he has lots of cash and doesn’t have to be accountable to anyone”, Schmidt said.

Smith, the author, said Kennedy would not join Trump at this point.

“It’s somewhat predictable that Trump did all the talking, and you only see Kennedy respond in a monosyllable one time,” she told Al Jazeera.
What are Kennedy’s views?

They’re a mixed bag. Once named a “Hero of the Planet” by Time magazine, he has threatened to repeal Biden’s signature climate legislation, which pushes for a transition to a green economy, calling for a market-led approach – a stance closer to Trump’s on the environment.

On immigration, he supports Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, forcing asylum seekers to wait south of the border for immigration hearings – a policy the Biden administration tried to end. This said, he is calling for the use of technology, such as cameras and detectors, in places where a physical wall is not necessary.

He has pitched himself as an antiwar candidate opposing aid to Ukraine and blaming the US and NATO for creating a “proxy war” with Russia – echoing a position taken by sections of the conservative right. Trump too has opposed aid to Ukraine.

Yet, RFK has staunchly defended Israel’s no-limits war on Gaza, bringing him into alignment with Biden.

Kennedy’s position on abortion has shifted during the campaign, but he is closer to Democrats on the issue. Having endorsed federal restrictions on abortion after the first trimester, he later issued a statement that abortion should be unrestricted until “the baby is viable outside the womb”.

He is perhaps best known for his anti-vaxxer views, abundantly aired during the COVID-19 pandemic when he accused the US government’s then-chief medical adviser, Anthony Fauci, of “a historic coup d’etat against Western democracy”.
Advertisement

How was the video leaked?

The video was first posted by Kennedy’s son, Robert F Kennedy III, with the message: “I am a firm believer that these sorts of conversations should be had in public. Here’s Trump giving his real opinion to my dad about vaccinating kids – this was the day after the assassination attempt.”

The video call spread like wildfire on social media, with Kennedy apologising to Trump on Tuesday on social media platform X.

“When President Trump called me, I was taping with an in-house videographer,” he wrote. “I should have ordered the videographer to stop recording immediately. I am mortified that this was posted,” he said.

Where is Kennedy in this race?

No third-party candidate has won the presidency in more than a century and a half, and the latest polls show Kennedy with about 8 percent support.

However, Kennedy has what pundits are calling the “X factor”. Polls back in May showed that his use of social media and appeal among younger voters could give him unpredictable sway in key swing states like North Carolina. The state’s election board voted Tuesday to certify the We The People party that supporters of Kennedy are using as a vehicle for him to run in a handful of states.

Not including North Carolina, Kennedy’s campaign has said he is officially on the ballot in nine states and that signatures have been submitted in 14 more.
A threat to the big two?

Both the Democrats and the Republicans see Kennedy as a threat, said Smith.

“So it makes sense that Trump was asking Kennedy to endorse him. Trump would like to have Kennedy’s voters [many of them young] supporting him, as that is a demographic that any presidential candidate would like to win,” she said.

Indeed, an NBC poll in April found that Kennedy was cutting deeper into Trump’s support.

Republican voters viewed him much more favourably (40 percent positive, 15 percent negative) than Democratic voters (16 percent positive, 53 percent negative).

Still, Democrats are mindful of what happened in 2000, when Green Party candidate Ralph Nader was blamed for Al Gore’s loss of Florida – and the presidency – to George W Bush.

The Democratic Party has been fighting hard to neutralise Kennedy, filing Federal Election Commission complaints against him and his allies to try to keep him off the ballot in several states. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has also sponsored advertisement campaigns attacking Kennedy.

Democrats claim that Kennedy is being funded by MAGA donors, notably the reclusive Tim Mellon, who has reportedly contributed $20m to Kennedy’s campaign.

As the leaked video of the conversation between Kennedy and Trump went viral, Democratic National Committee spokesperson Matt Corridoni posted on X: “When people show you who they are, believe them”.

How does Kennedy view his former party?

Kennedy’s campaign hasn’t been going well in recent days.

This month, Vanity Fair revealed the independent candidate had allegedly groped babysitter Eliza Cooney in the late 90s. While Kennedy later apologised to Cooney by text, she later told The Washington Post that she found the message from Mr Kennedy “disingenuous and arrogant”.

For his part, Kennedy claims that the Democrats are out to get him, suggesting that they are in cahoots with the media.

“The [Democratic National Convention] media’s garbage pail journalism may distract us from President Biden’s cognitive deficits but it does little to elevate the national debate or reduce the price of groceries,” he said on X.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

WORKERS CAPITAL

Updated briefing: Canadian financial companies blocking Hong Kongers’ access to an estimated C$2 billion in retirement savings

Despite testifying in the Canadian Parliament one week ago on the withholding of Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) savings from Hong Kongers who have permanently left Hong Kong, Manulife and Sun Life continue to prevent Hong Kongers from accessing an estimated C$2 billion worth of their hard-earned retirement savings.

The funds are held as part of Hong Kong’s mandatory pension scheme, which are held in trust by various financial institutions, including the Canadian financial companies, as part of the MPF system. Manulife alone holds almost 28% of the MPF market with over C$56 billion in assets under management. Sun Life manages around C$23 billion. Management fees for the Manulife MPF funds vary between 0.75% and 1.98%. Sun Life’s vary from 0.77% to 2.13%.

Ordinarily, anyone permanently leaving Hong Kong is entitled to withdraw their MPF savings. However, a unilateral declaration from the Hong Kong government in response to the opening of the BNO visa scheme in January 2021 to no longer recognise the BNO identity has blocked access for hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers.

This retaliatory action was conducted by fiat with no laws or regulations being changed in Hong Kong regarding the operation of the Mandatory Provident Fund. Under the MPF trust deed, trustees like Manulife and Sun Life have a legal obligation to release the savings to beneficiaries who can provide evidence of their right to reside in a foreign country, which includes a BNO passport or visa.

However, Hong Kong Watch and Members of the Canadian Parliament continue to see several letters from Manulife and Sun Life to Hong Kongers, rejecting their early MPF withdrawal claims based on guidance from the Mandatory Provident Fund Authority which supervises the provision of MPF schemes and does not consider the BNO passport or visa a valid form of identification per the Hong Kong government’s declaration. This includes the case of a Hong Konger in Canada who had obtained Canadian permanent residency and applied to withdraw their MPF from Manulife, but was denied simply because they arrived in Canada with their BNO passport.

During the hearing in the Canadian Parliament last week, Laura Hewitt, Sun Life’s Head of Global Government Affairs and Public Policy, said, “Sun Life does not decline Canadian permanent residents or citizens who have permanently left Hong Kong from withdrawing their MPF funds.”

Maryscott Greenwood, Manulife’s Global Head of Government Relations for Canada, said, “We do not decline to process an application for reasons of the BNO visa or passport.”

Hong Kong Watch continues to actively engage in discussions with these MPF trustees as well as cross-department governmental and parliamentary representatives to ensure that this is the case, and continues to call for the release of Hong Kongers’ rightful access to their own savings.

The briefing also recommends that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) should change the designation of BNO passport and visa holders from ‘GBN’ to ‘CHN’ or ‘HKG’ on Canadian permanent residency cards to allow Hong Kongers to access their MPF savings and to prevent further retaliation from the Hong Kong government.

The full briefing can be read here.

Megan Khoo, Research and Policy Advisor of Hong Kong Watch and author of the briefing, said:

“We are grateful that Manulife and Sun Life testified before the Canadian Parliament last week, but carefully-worded answers without follow-up actions not only result in Hong Kongers continuing to be denied access to their savings but also lend a hand to transnational repression against the Hong Kong community. There continues to be an open case in which a Hong Konger with permanent residency in Canada is being denied access to their MPF. This is not acceptable. Hong Kongers should be able to flee from increasing persecution in Hong Kong to Canada, without having to endure further forms of persecution that mentally and financially threaten their new lives.”

STRAY

Turkish legislators hold tense debate on bill to control stray dogs. Critics fear a mass culling

A stray dog rests outside Byzantine-era Hagia Sophia mosque in Istanbul, Turkey, Wednesday, July 3, 2024. A Turkish parliamentary commission on Wednesday began a tense debate on a bill designed to manage the country’s large stray dog population which animal … more >

By Suzan Fraser - Associated Press - Wednesday, July 17, 2024

ANKARA, Turkey — A Turkish parliamentary commission began a tense debate Wednesday on a bill to manage the country’s large stray dog population that animal advocates fear could result in the widespread killing of the animals.

The legislation, submitted to parliament by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling party, is pitting groups advocating for safer streets free of the feral dogs against animal rights activists who are demanding the withdrawal of the bill.


Erdogan has stated that approximately four million stray animals are wandering the streets and rural areas of Turkey. While many of them are docile, an increasing numbers of dogs are seen roaming in packs and numerous people have been attacked.

The legislation being debated in parliament’s agriculture and rural affairs commission is a diluted version of an initial proposal that would have required the strays to be rounded up, housed in shelters and euthanized if they are not adopted within 30 days.

That proposal, which was leaked to the media, had ignited a public uproar, with animal rights activists arguing it would result in the mass extermination of unadopted dogs.

The revised proposal forces municipalities to remove the stray dogs from the streets and place them into shelters where they would be neutered and spayed. Dogs that are sick, believed to have rabies or exhibiting aggressive behavior would be euthanized.

Municipalities would also be required to build dog shelters or improve conditions in existing shelters by 2028.

The revised bill has failed to ease concerns, with activists arguing that certain municipalities may opt for the easy solution of conducting a mass culling of the stray animals instead of allocating resources toward shelters.

The parliament’s agriculture and rural affairs commission meeting began tumultuously when the committee chair demanded that media, NGO representatives and other observers exit the room, citing insufficient space to accommodate everyone. The meeting was later moved to a larger room.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for STRAYS 

Haiti: Displaced Women Face ‘unprecedented’ Level Of Insecurity And Sexual Violence

Thursday, 18 July 2024, 
Press Release: UN News

Instability in Haiti is fuelling a spike in sexual violence against women and girls as armed gangs continue their assault on the population, the UN agency championing gender equality said on Wednesday.

A new report by UN Women reveals the dire living conditions and lack of security faced by some 300,000 displaced women and girls amid ongoing political instability, escalating gang violence and the threat of the current hurricane season.

In constant danger

Women and girls account for more than half of the 580,000 displaced people in Haiti, and the UN Women Rapid Gender Assessment highlights how makeshift camps, which lack basic necessities, are putting them at particular risk of sexual and gender-based violence.

The survey was conducted in April in the six most populated and diverse displacement sites in the capital, Port-au-Prince.

It found that most camps have no lighting or locks in key areas such as bedrooms and toilets, while residents are exposed to daily threats from the gangs. The constant danger of stray bullets and other security risks further underscore the urgent need for improved protection in these sites.

Aggression against women and girls, specifically rape, is also being used in most camps as a deliberate tactic to control their access to humanitarian assistance, the agency noted.

Appeal to new Government

“Our report tells us that the level of insecurity and brutality, including sexual violence, that women are facing at the hands of gangs in Haiti is unprecedented. It must stop now,” said UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous.

“We urge the newly appointed Government to take measures to prevent and respond to the violence women and girls are subjected to, and to increase women’s participation in the camps’ management so that their security concerns are listened to and acted upon.”

She added that “humanitarian aid must be safely distributed in line with the differentiated needs of women and girls.”

Resorting to sex work

The report also revealed that nearly 90 per cent of women interviewed have no source of income in the camps.

More than 10 per cent said they had resorted to or considered the possibility of sex work or prostitution to meet their needs at least once, and 20 per cent knew at least one person who had done so.

Other findings include that some 16 per cent of respondents felt intimidated, harassed, or traumatized by armed gangs, and almost 70 per cent said they were mentally affected by the upsurge in violence. Only 10 per cent reported having access to health services in the camps.

Supporting women’s organizations and entrepreneurship

In response to the crisis in Haiti, UN Women is assisting women’s organizations to reach displaced people within host communities and camps, including through projects supported by the UN Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund, the UN Peacebuilding Fund, and the German Government.

The agency has also trained police officers to improve prevention of sexual and gender-based violence and provide services to survivors. Additionally, it continues to support women entrepreneurs, who are affected by road blockages and ongoing violence, through a project funded by Norway.

International security mission

Last October, the UN Security Council authorized the deployment of a Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission to assist the Haitian National Police in combatting the gangs.

UN Women urged all stakeholders involved in the non-UN mission to guarantee the immediate protection of women and girls, and to give Haitian women’s organizations a leading role in the management of the displacement camps.

Only two per cent of women surveyed reported having a leadership role in camp management, the agency said, stressing the urgency to both ensure their active participation in decision-making and implement immediate protection measures.

© Scoop Media

Ghana supreme court defers ruling on anti-LGBTQ bill


By Guardian Nigeria
17 Jul 2024 |

Ghana's President Nana Akufo-Addo leaves the Banquet Hall after the closing session of the ordinary session of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Heads of State and Government in Abuja, on July 7, 2024. - A summit of West African leaders opened on July 7, 2024 in Abuja in a tense political context following the decision of Niger, Mali and Burkina to unite within a "confederation". (Photo by Kola Sulaimon / AFP)

Ghana’s Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred its ruling on a request to restrain parliament from transmitting a highly contested anti-LGBTQ bill to President Nana Akufo-Addo for his final approval.

The ruling means debate around the bill, which has dominated Ghana’s political discourse since parliament passed it in February, will be sidelined from the campaign for December’s presidential election race.

Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, chairing the five-member Supreme Court panel, said the court will expedite the case. But the case has been adjourned indefinitely, with no date set for further rulings.

Ghana’s Attorney-General Godfred Dame welcomed the court’s decision, telling the media: “I think the court is fair in coming by that approach.”

Two lawsuits are challenging the passage of the so-called “Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill”, which has faced widespread international criticism for curbing human rights.

Broadcaster Richard Dela Sky is contesting the constitutionality of the bill, arguing it violates several provisions of the 1992 Constitution.

Amanda Odoi, the other plaintiff, is seeking a restraining order to prevent the parliament speaker, the attorney-general, and the clerk of parliament from sending the bill to President Akufo-Addo for approval.

The bill, which stipulates jail terms of six months to three years for engaging in LGBTQ sex and sentences of three to five years for promoting or sponsoring LGBTQ activities, has drawn condemnation from rights activists but gained wide support in the conservative West African state.

Ghana’s finance ministry has warned that the country, emerging from its worst economic crisis in decades and under a $3 billion loan programme from the International Monetary Fund, risks losing close to $3.8 billion in World Bank financing due to the bill.

Akufo-Addo, who is stepping down after two terms, has refused to approve the bill, citing the multiple court cases against it.

His ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) faces a tight race against the main opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the upcoming presidential ballot.

The bill, commonly referred to as the anti-gay bill, has faced widespread international condemnation, including from the United Nations, the United States, and the British government.

Despite this, it has significant support among MPs and is backed by a coalition of Christian, Muslim, and Ghanaian traditional leaders.