Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Chile UPDATES
'Mentally, we're in crisis mode': protests leave Chileans living on their nerves
Chileans are gripped by uncertainty – suspended between hopes of progress, and frustration over an elusive political solution

John Bartlett in Santiago
Tue 17 Dec 2019

The Guardian
 

A woman uses her phone as security forces members look on in 
Santiago, Chile, on 16 December 2019. Photograph: Iván Alvarado/Reuters

When a tsunami of unrest spilled into Santiago’s fashionable Bellavista neighbourhood in October, Daniel Gajardo, 33, was torn between sympathy for the protesters and frustration at the harm they were doing his fledgling business.

The recording studio and music shop he co-owns had been thriving, and moved to new premises just a day before the first major demonstration.

But then came a week-long curfew (during which their shop was burgled), an ongoing succession of demonstrations and street battles – and a 19-day wait before their next sale.

“I would sit in my office staring at my phone, but it didn’t ring for two weeks,” said Gajardo. “It’s been like starting from scratch because we have debts to pay without any income. This has hit us incredibly hard,” he said.

Two months after Chile lurched from an illusory clm to a fiery outburst of rage, there is still no sign that life is about to return to normal.


'The constitution of the dictatorship has died': Chile agrees deal on reform vote Read more

After an agreement last month between political parties, the country will next year hold a referendum on drafting a new constitution – one of the protesters’ main demands.

But widespread anger still simmers over inequality, social exclusion and the high cost of education and healthcare. Demonstrators continue to gather across the country every day, and violence often erupts at nightfall.

Chileans have found themselves in a state of uncertainty – suspended between hopes of progress, and frustration over a political solution which seems beyond reach

.
People wait at a bus stop during a national strike and general demonstration 
in Santiago on 12 November. Photograph: Claudio Santana/Getty Images

“In some ways, this protest has been a carnival and a liberation – bringing euphoria and an excess of emotions,” said psychoanalyst Constanza Michelson. “But for many people there is also creeping anxiety: human beings are not built to withstand such uncertainty. Mentally, it puts us in crisis mode.

“There’s a huge deficit in terms of mental healthcare in our country, and making people’s commutes longer and days more stressful is inevitably going to take its toll,” she said.

María Paz Núñez, 34, lives close to Santiago’s Plaza Italia, a focus of the protests, and has been given a leave of absence in order to deal with depression.

“Seeing my neighbourhood destroyed and graffitied, not having the metro – it all affects you, whether or not you agree with the demands of the movement as I do. Faced with a government that doesn’t listen, we are all left with this infuriating feeling of impotence.”

According to Chile’s health ministry, the number of people given medical leave from work citing mental health concerns increased 22% over the first five weeks of the protests.

In some parts of the country life has regained a degree of normality, but daily routines are still disrupted by transport stoppages, the near-paralysis of the university system, and pockets of vandalism and violence in parts of cities.

For many, the stress of each day is compounded by the financial impact of the protests: according to the government, nearly 15,000 businesses have been affected by the movement, more than half of which have suffered damage to their property.

Arson attacks have gutted historic buildings in cities the length of Chile, and there have been incidents of looting and opportunist crime.

Gajardo and his business partner Cristián Luengo have struggled to reconcile his enthusiasm for the movement with the damage it has inflicted upon their business, forcing them to cut their employees’ hours.

“The emotions are mixed,” said Luengo, “I was paranoid. Every night I sleep badly, worried that the phone will ring to say that our place has been looted. It’s the uncertainty that gets you in the end.”

Vast marches have become less frequent, but the undercurrent of rage that drove them has not yet dissipated. In downtown Santiago, the breeze still carries a whiff of teargas, and the statue of the 19th-century hero Manuel Baquedano in Plaza Italia remains a focal point for protesters

Plaza Italia in Santiago has remained a focal point 
for demonstrators, such as here on 10 December. 
Photograph: Pablo Sanhueza/Reuters

Some who joined the demonstrations on 18 October have drifted away from confrontations in the street to resume everyday commitments.

Others remain fully committed.

Every day Camilo, a 20-year-old student in the sprawling coastal city of Valparaíso trudges down the hill from his parents’ house to join the ranks of the discontented.

Pulling a black T-shirt over his face, he sprays slogans on walls, helps build makeshift barricades across roads and attacks buildings and infrastructure.

“I know that smashing a bus shelter or traffic light won’t change anything – but it exerts pressure and that makes a difference. It’s a way of letting the anger inside me out,” he said.


Chile security forces' crackdown leaves toll of death and broken bodies Read more

“When the teargas comes, people help us, washing out our eyes with bicarbonate of soda to soothe the stinging,” he said. “When I’m out there I’m part of a family … You know that you are beside someone who is suffering the same inequalities as you.”

Chileans have not been appeased by solutions offered by mainstream politicians; the government’s approval rating has slumped to around 10%

On Sunday, 2 million Chileans voted in a non-binding consultation which showed that 91% of respondents were in favour of drawing up a new constitution.

But as the protest movement stutters, those who had pinned their hopes on dramatic change may find that the eventual comedown will be severe, said Michelson.

“In the past, people didn’t have a cause to identify with – but they certainly do now,” she said. “How and why would they return to how life was before? They’re in too deep.”

                                                          ---30---


“In some ways, this protest has been a carnival and a liberation – bringing euphoria and an excess of emotions,” said psychoanalyst Constanza Michelson. 




COP25 climate summit

Decolonization needed for net-zero emissions


Who wins, who loses and whose natures are being talked about when nature-based solutions are proposed?



We are in the midst of a global environmental crisis and the sense of urgency becomes ever more evident with each additional story of climate disasters, ecological tipping points and climate records being shattered somewhere in the world.

At this moment, global representatives are gathering at the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Madrid to discuss immediate steps in halting further climate crisis.

Only a few weeks before COP25, a new set of alarming reports were released, pointing to the disastrous impact of continuously rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Thunberg and Monbiot rightly recognize that expenditures on global fossil fuel subsidies are 1,000 times more than the support for nature-based solutions. They claim that what is needed is “to protect, restore and fund nature.”

While the need for urgent action is clear, we must be vigilant to the ways in which “solutions” get proposed and to whose interests are favoured over others.
The solutions proposed at COP25 must reflect the demands of people. It is not clear that this is the case. For instance, the conference was meant to take place in Santiago, Chile, but was diverted to Madrid to avoid the nationwide strikes against economic policies that benefit the very rich at the expense of the majority. These same economic policies are responsible for ecological destruction. The stakes are high and time is running thin to fail to connect these issues.

The devil is in the details

As a group of researchers and practitioners who are deeply committed to exploring how nature-based solutions get implemented on the ground, we want to draw attention to some of the silences in Thunberg and Monbiot’s video. While we cannot emphasize enough that our intervention here aims to build further on their energy and efforts, we do think it is crucial to ask important questions that all too often tend to be overlooked.
Instead of furthering a “we are all in the same boat” rhetoric, we’ve got to address the deeply political issues of who wins, who loses and whose natures are being talked about when nature-based solutions are proposed.
Global corporations like Coca-Cola, Shell, Bayer and BP are increasingly dependent on greening their image to remain socially viable. Some environmental NGOs have been accused of accepting donations from corporations and imposing a view of conservation that makes extractive industries and care for nature compatible. These big environmental NGOs ought to have greater accountability for their actions.


Transformational change must instead be rooted in environmental justice, emphasizing the intersections of nature conservation with migrant justice, bottom-up community-driven approaches to conservation and the recognition of land rights.
Sixteen-year-old Isra Hirsi, for instance, reminds us that climate advocacy has less to do with nature characterized as “a deep love for the great outdoors” and more to do with standing in support of communities whose air and water are being poisoned.
For meaningful change to happen, we must not allow business-as-usual with a greener face to co-opt the voices for change on the streets.

Protect what and for whom?

Thunberg and Monbiot say that nature-based solutions can only work if we leave fossil fuels in the ground. They are, of course, absolutely right. But what happens to people that live where nature-based solutions are being suggested?
For many people, nature is more than a tool or a collection of trees that suck carbon dioxide out of the air. The livelihoods of people are as much a part of forests as the insect drone and the tree canopy.
We need to break from conceptions of pristine nature and make it clear and unambiguous that environments are formed by people shaping nature in ways that reflect their ways of living.
Without questioning the necessity of endless economic growth, nature simply becomes a new source of extractive wealth, in which biodiversity and investment in nature conservation become big business, strategically employed in elaborate public relation ploys.


Similarly, putting monetary values on nature to justify its protection risks imposing a particular (western) language of valuation, while alienating the relationships people have with the living world and reducing it to profit-oriented transactions. Furthermore, purely focusing on carbon when talking about forest protection and restoration risks disregarding other meanings and relational values that forests have for people.

Let’s divest, decolonize and resist

We must be aware of the dangers of green growth, which refers to the idea of growing the economy and therefore maintaining business as usual. While there doesn’t seem to be a single definition for these type of business, they all seem to suggest decarbonization through technology improvements and putting market values for nature.
A mountain-top village in Nam Ha Protected Area, in Luang Namtha, Laos. (Shutterstock)
Green growth is not the same thing as responding to climate urgency. Let’s make sure any funding to protect nature will not be used to further private interests in the development of carbon markets, but rather for experimenting with divestment alternatives that focus on halting the fossil fuel industry, overfishing and the expanding frontier of agri-business.
Let’s restore … but let’s go further! Let’s recognize the original caretakers of the lands and waters and learn about nature from them. Nature is not an idyllic and passive landscape to consume. Greenwashed images of nature, where people are conveniently absent, shield us from the violent suppression of voices that have historically called those places home.
Let’s decolonize our views of nature so that we can better see it all around us and not somewhere “out there” and outside of our human communities. We need to deconstruct persistent ideas of nature as a global good rendering invisible local conceptions, needs and demands to the land by its inhabitants.


We also must resist by supporting the struggle of millions of marginalized people around the world dispossessed from their lands, their forests, their waters and their ways of life.
This goes far beyond just rallying around the banner of an abstract environmentalism. Caring for nature means resisting the commodification of nature and standing up to environmental injustice. It also means getting to know the struggles and aspirations of environmental defenders and forest dwellers, who they fight and how you can help from where you are.
It is crucial to mobilize and get politically organized, to come together in solidarity for a long-haul struggle. The young people organizing around Thunberg’s call are an amazing turning point in global politics. Let’s seize the moment and never sell ourselves short.

In September, Greta Thunberg joined environmental activist and writer George Monbiot to produce a video, #NatureNow, to raise the potential of nature-based solutions “to repair our broken climate,” drawing on the processes and functions of nature, including reforestation and restoration of forests, wetlands and mangroves.

REMEMBERING THE MONTREAL MASSACRE AS THE EARLIEST MODERN MISOGYNISTIC MASS MURDER OF WOMEN FOR BEING 
FEMINISTS BY A LEBANESE CANADIAN MALE



People march during a climate strike in Montréal in September 2019. Climate change is a top concern for Canadians, but new Elections Canada rules left civil society organizations fearing they could not speak out on the need for climate action during the election. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Graham Hughes


It’s almost 2020, and with a minority government in power, another federal election could be upon Canadians sooner than expected.
So as the dust settles on the 2019 vote, it’s important to examine the data on an issue that clouded the election campaign — the impact of new Elections Canada regulations on public debate by civil society organizations.
In June 2019, the federal government amended Canada’s Elections Act. The rules require third parties, including non-profit groups, to register with Elections Canada if they spend more than $500 on “political advertising.” That includes any spending to promote positions during election campaigns on public policy issues on which political parties have taken a stand, or to support or oppose particular candidates and parties.
The new Elections Act also sets specific spending limits on third-party election advertising.
These changes to the Elections Act are important measures to prevent the type of unlimited spending by political action committees (PACs) that followed the Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court in 2010. The court ruled that spending limits on third-party election advertising was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.
Since 2010, what are known as super-PACs have subsequently become major players in American elections, enabling wealthy individuals to exert enormous political influence. Indeed, wealthy donors spent more than US$1.4 billion during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

Silencing voices

The new Elections Canada regulations impose spending limits on third parties ($1,023,400 in the pre-election period and $511,700 in the election period) and specific regulations against collusion between third parties that would prevent the type of unlimited spending by super-PACs in the United States.
However, the new Elections Canada regulations have also played a role in silencing the voices of many Canadian organizations on a wide range of public policy issues — from climate change to health care to international aid.
This chilling effect came into play most powerfully when Elections Canada indicated in a training session for non-profits that organizations with public policy positions on climate change would need to register and report on their spending, given that right-wing candidate Maxime Bernier had made public statements denying climate change.
The silencing impact may not have been intentional, but it is very real and represents a threat to healthy public debate and democracy in Canada. Elections are important opportunities for Canadians to debate public policy, and it’s crucial that civil society groups are able to contribute to those debates.
On the surface, the new Elections Act appears to strike a balance between free speech and excessive influence by wealthy individuals and corporations.
The Elections Act does not prohibit civil society organizations from spending money to promote public policy positions. However, many organizations saw the requirement to register and report on spending as ominous — especially after the crackdown on charities carried out by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.

Fears of another crackdown

Justin Trudeau’s government made significant changes to the CRA regulations in 2019 that allow charities to engage much more freely in public policy debates. But many Canadian civil society groups still worry that the federal government will crack down on organizations that criticize its policies.
The regulations also add bureaucratic headaches and expenses to non-profit organizations, many of which cannot afford to pay additional costs for participation in public policy debates.
Staff with many Canadian civil society groups have reported that their organizations did not speak out on public policy issues during the election campaign for fear they’d be penalized by Elections Canada or the CRA.


The silencing effect is also clear in data from Elections Canada.
There are more than 175,000 registered non-profit and charitable organizations in Canada. Only 147 registered to report election advertising in 2019, only 50 reported spending more than $10,000 (the reporting threshold set by Elections Canada) and only two have charitable status.

Climate change a key concern

Climate change was a top concern for Canadians during the 2019 election campaign. However, my analysis of the Elections Canada data shows that only 17 environmental organizations registered, and only seven reported spending more than $10,000 (for a cumulative total of $634,307) during the election period.
Similarly, while Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer made Canada’s international aid an election issue by proposing to cut it by 25 per cent, only five international social justice organizations registered, and none of them reported spending over $10,000.
Health care is always an important issue to Canadians, but just one (the Canadian Medical Association) reported spending over $10,000.
The data suggests the new rules kept conservative groups quiet too. Only one gun rights organization reported any spending ($32,091) and just seven explicitly pro-Conservative organizations registered, spending a total of $690,922. As of Oct. 14, 2019 — a week before the election —the total reported by all organizations was just over $9.4 million.
Canada’s new Elections Act may have prevented the type of mammoth spending seen in the United States via super-PACs, but it’s been at the expense of silencing many Canadian organizations with important positions on public policy issues.


The $500 limit must be reviewed. Shutterstock

Elections Canada needs to do more to make sure that the new regulations do not block public policy debates. It should also review the $500 threshold for requiring organizations to register with Elections Canada.
With a minority government in Parliament, Canadians could soon head to the polls again, so there may not be much time to make these changes.
This is a corrected version of a story originally published Dec. 12, 2019. This version clarifies details about the amended Elections Act and corrects the number of health-sector organizations that registered with Elections Canada.

It’s almost 2020, and with a minority government in power, another federal election could be upon Canadians sooner than expected.
So as the dust settles on the 2019 vote, it’s important to examine the data on an issue that clouded the election campaign — the impact of new Elections Canada regulations on public debate by civil society organizations.
In June 2019, the federal government amended Canada’s Elections Act. The rules require third parties, including non-profit groups, to register with Elections Canada if they spend more than $500 on “political advertising.” That includes any spending to promote positions during election campaigns on public policy issues on which political parties have taken a stand, or to support or oppose particular candidates and parties.
The new Elections Act also sets specific spending limits on third-party election advertising.
These changes to the Elections Act are important measures to prevent the type of unlimited spending by political action committees (PACs) that followed the Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court in 2010. The court ruled that spending limits on third-party election advertising was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.
Since 2010, what are known as super-PACs have subsequently become major players in American elections, enabling wealthy individuals to exert enormous political influence. Indeed, wealthy donors spent more than US$1.4 billion during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

Silencing voices

The new Elections Canada regulations impose spending limits on third parties ($1,023,400 in the pre-election period and $511,700 in the election period) and specific regulations against collusion between third parties that would prevent the type of unlimited spending by super-PACs in the United States.
However, the new Elections Canada regulations have also played a role in silencing the voices of many Canadian organizations on a wide range of public policy issues — from climate change to health care to international aid.
This chilling effect came into play most powerfully when Elections Canada indicated in a training session for non-profits that organizations with public policy positions on climate change would need to register and report on their spending, given that right-wing candidate Maxime Bernier had made public statements denying climate change.
The silencing impact may not have been intentional, but it is very real and represents a threat to healthy public debate and democracy in Canada. Elections are important opportunities for Canadians to debate public policy, and it’s crucial that civil society groups are able to contribute to those debates.
On the surface, the new Elections Act appears to strike a balance between free speech and excessive influence by wealthy individuals and corporations.
The Elections Act does not prohibit civil society organizations from spending money to promote public policy positions. However, many organizations saw the requirement to register and report on spending as ominous — especially after the crackdown on charities carried out by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.

Fears of another crackdown

Justin Trudeau’s government made significant changes to the CRA regulations in 2019 that allow charities to engage much more freely in public policy debates. But many Canadian civil society groups still worry that the federal government will crack down on organizations that criticize its policies.
The regulations also add bureaucratic headaches and expenses to non-profit organizations, many of which cannot afford to pay additional costs for participation in public policy debates.
Staff with many Canadian civil society groups have reported that their organizations did not speak out on public policy issues during the election campaign for fear they’d be penalized by Elections Canada or the CRA.


The silencing effect is also clear in data from Elections Canada.
There are more than 175,000 registered non-profit and charitable organizations in Canada. Only 147 registered to report election advertising in 2019, only 50 reported spending more than $10,000 (the reporting threshold set by Elections Canada) and only two have charitable status.

Climate change a key concern

Climate change was a top concern for Canadians during the 2019 election campaign. However, my analysis of the Elections Canada data shows that only 17 environmental organizations registered, and only seven reported spending more than $10,000 (for a cumulative total of $634,307) during the election period.
Similarly, while Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer made Canada’s international aid an election issue by proposing to cut it by 25 per cent, only five international social justice organizations registered, and none of them reported spending over $10,000.
Health care is always an important issue to Canadians, but just one (the Canadian Medical Association) reported spending over $10,000.
The data suggests the new rules kept conservative groups quiet too. Only one gun rights organization reported any spending ($32,091) and just seven explicitly pro-Conservative organizations registered, spending a total of $690,922. As of Oct. 14, 2019 — a week before the election —the total reported by all organizations was just over $9.4 million.
Canada’s new Elections Act may have prevented the type of mammoth spending seen in the United States via super-PACs, but it’s been at the expense of silencing many Canadian organizations with important positions on public policy issues.


The $500 limit must be reviewed. Shutterstock

Elections Canada needs to do more to make sure that the new regulations do not block public policy debates. It should also review the $500 threshold for requiring organizations to register with Elections Canada.
With a minority government in Parliament, Canadians could soon head to the polls again, so there may not be much time to make these changes.
This is a corrected version of a story originally published Dec. 12, 2019. This version clarifies details about the amended Elections Act and corrects the number of health-sector organizations that registered with Elections Canada.