NIGERIA

EXCLUSIVE: Private Jet President Tinubu Flew To South Africa Is Owned By Lebanese Ally, Chagoury, Who Was Awarded Controversial Lagos-Calabar Highway


June 19, 2024
The Nigerian President arrived at Waterkloof Air Force Base on the outskirts of Pretoria, South Africa’s administrative capital, on Tuesday evening.

President Bola Tinubu departed Lagos for South Africa to attend the inauguration of the country’s President, Cyril Ramaphosa in a private jet belonging to his Lebanese ally, Gilbert Chagoury.

The Nigerian President arrived at Waterkloof Air Force Base on the outskirts of Pretoria, South Africa’s administrative capital, on Tuesday evening.

Video and pictures released by the South African presidential media team showed Tinubu disembarked from a Dassault Falcon 8X aircraft.

However, SaharaReporters gathered that the private jet marked 9H-GRC is owned by Chagoury Group, a conglomerate owned by Gilbert Chagoury, a known business partner of the Nigerian President.

Born in Nigeria to Lebanese immigrants, the businessman flourished in the 1990s through his close association with the late dictator, Sani Abacha by receiving development deals and oil franchises.

After Abacha’s death in 1998, the Nigerian government hired lawyers to track funds stolen through associates of the late dictator.

The trail led to bank accounts all over the world, some under Gilbert Chagoury’s control.

In 2000, the Lebanese businessman was convicted by a Swiss court for laundering some of the funds Abacha looted from Nigeria.

He agreed to pay a fine of about 1 million Swiss francs (about $600,000) at that time to get his Swiss conviction expunged and handed back $66 million to the Nigerian government but denied knowing the funds were stolen.
“To be more precise: the Falcon 8X (9H-GRC) is owned by the Chagoury Group and operated by Hyperion Aviation: https://x.com/se_spotting/status/1803147789138063817. Less politics now, more aircraft news,” @avinngblog, an X account known for aviation news in Nigeria added.

A further check by SaharaReporters on an aircraft registration database revealed that the private jet and others owned by the group are operated by Hyperion Aviation.

The Dassault Falcon 8X was first operated by Aviation SA before it was transferred to Amjet Executive.

The aircraft was also briefly registered under Chagoury Group for some days before its operation was moved to Hyperion Aviation.

Hyperion is an air charter company operating business jets, headquartered in Malta.

President Tinubu in 2023 awarded the largest road construction project in the country to another Gilbert Chagoury’s company, Hitech Construction Company, in which his son Seyi Tinubu sits on its board.

The 700km Lagos-Calabar coastal highway will run through nine states and was put at a cost of $11bn in 2021.

In recent times, some demolitions have been carried out in Lagos to expedite the construction of the highway.

SaharaReporters had reported how a Boeing Business Jet (Boeing 737-700) marked 5N-FGT owned by the Nigerian government incurred parking charges running into millions of Naira since it was transported to Germany on March 25 for repairs.

The amount accounted for the aircraft’s parking charges for over 80 days, at the rate of €5,000 (N8million) at the rate of N1613 to €1.

In April, the President was forced to travel to Saudi Arabia on a charter flight for the World Economic Forum in Riyadh from the Netherlands.

At the time, the President left Nigeria on a Gulfstream Aerospace GV-SP (G550) with registration number 5N-FGW and serial number 5310 (Mode-S 0640F2) because the Boeing 737-700 marked 5N-FGT was undergoing rehabilitation in Germany.

However, the second aircraft he was travelling on developed a fault in the Netherlands.

The Nigerian leader had arrived in The Hague on April 23 from Nigeria for a series of economic and diplomatic engagements at the instance of Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

It was reported that the Nigerian President learnt shortly before he was scheduled to depart the Netherlands that his plane had suffered unspecified problems, one of which an official identified as including an oxygen leak.

The president and his delegation left the presidential aircraft behind and opted for a charter jet company to take them to Saudi Arabia for the forum.

The aircraft, a Gulfstream G550 class, was originally dedicated to Vice President, Kashim Shettima.

SaharaReporters learnt that it was the aircraft also used by former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo.

Wales could become world’s first country to criminalise politicians who lie

Could Welsh parliament politicians be criminalised for telling untruths? Elnur/Shutterstock

THE CONVERSATION
Published: June 19, 2024 

Trust and confidence in UK politics and the election system have never been lower. One of the central reasons for this breakdown in trust is the widespread popular belief that some politicians have made a practice of lying to the public. Research published in 2022 showed the British public overwhelmingly wanted lying politicians to face consequences.

And while the UK’s general election is grabbing the headlines, a proposal in Wales’ Senedd (Welsh parliament) is seeking to address this issue by introducing new legislation that would criminalise politicians who lie. If passed, Wales would become the first country in the world to introduce criminal sanctions for lying politicians.

The proposals are being led by the former leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price, who has described a “credibility gap” in UK politics as a “gaping chasm”. Price has pushed for such changes since the mid-2000s when he campaigned for the impeachment of Tony Blair over the war in Iraq.

Price tried and failed to introduce an offence for politicians who lie when laws were passed in May expanding the size of the Senedd. But a cross-party committee has now voted in favour of Price’s proposals, and they are being considered for incorporation into the new elections and elected bodies (Wales) bill instead.

Under the proposals it would be a criminal offence for a member of the Senedd, or a candidate for election to the Senedd, to wilfully, or with intent to mislead, make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive. Proceedings would have to be brought within six months from the date on which the statement was made.

It would be considered a defence if it could be “reasonably inferred” to be a statement of opinion, or if it were retracted with an apology within 14 days. Being prosecuted for such a law would disqualify a person from being a Senedd member.

The proposals are not yet law, and the bill has further debate stages yet to go. Price’s amendment is supported by Plaid Cymru, the Welsh Conservatives and the Welsh Liberal Democrats.

But so far the amendment does not have the support of the Welsh Labour government and ministers may attempt to have it removed. The Welsh counsel general (similar to the UK government’s attorney general), Mick Antoniw, has said he supports the “general principle,” but is concerned that the amendment “amounts to little more than bad and ineffective law.”

There are also broader concerns about whether the Senedd has the ability under Wales’s devolved powers to make such a law. While Wales can pass laws in respect of the operations of the Senedd, legally speaking there are problems when it comes to straying into the realms of criminal offences. In this instance it is unlikely the Senedd would be able to expressly create a criminal offence such as this.

The Senedd may find itself in territory akin to what Scotland experienced when the UK government blocked Scotland’s gender recognition bill. In January 2023, the UK government invoked section 35 of the Scotland Act to veto proposals designed to make it easier for people to change their legal gender, on the grounds they would affect equality law for the whole of the UK.
Is such a law necessary?

The Welsh ministerial code already exists and is meant to uphold the standards of constitutional and personal conduct of ministers. The Senedd has an independent standards commissioner, who is an “impartial provider of advice on any matter of principle relating to conduct of members of the Senedd”.

But the commissioner doesn’t deal with complaints relating to the actions of the Welsh government and ministers carrying out Welsh government business. Nor do they investigate issues relating to the performance of Senedd members. The standards commissioner’s website states that this is because: “Issues relating to performance of the member of the Senedd in his or her role is essentially a matter for the electorate at the ballot box.”

There are also the Nolan principles which apply to those elected or appointed to public office across the UK. They include the principles of “integrity”, “openness” and “honesty”.

The proposals to criminalise lying by politicians are being led by the former leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price. Thomas Bowles/Alamy

The problem with the current regime is a lack of enforcement. Beyond accountability to the electorate during elections, there are very few repercussions when politicians mislead the public. This is helping to fuel a mistrust of politicians, and casting doubt over what can be believed.

Laws may be a stepping stone to restoring trust and facilitating enforceability in a different way, and with legal safeguards. In terms of standards, it would bring politicians more into line with what is expected from other professions, such as lawyers and doctors. Of course, members of these professions aren’t criminalised unless they explicitly break the law, but they are held to account if they fail to maintain certain standards and can be struck off as a result.

Politically speaking, while the Welsh government could seek to remove anti-lying amendments at future debates, that would do little to signal trust in those elected to public office. In fact, it could prove to be even more damaging.

This issue is likely to shine a spotlight on the constitutional devolved competence of the Senedd itself. But trust in politics is a UK-wide issue. While some politicians are trying to put a sticking plaster over the wound, the new UK government will need to work with all devolved administrations to take more significant steps to rebuild trust.

It’s a bleak indictment of democracy that a law reminding politicians not to lie is even being considered. But a culture change in politics is evidently needed.

Author 

Stephen Clear
Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor University

Rights and safety of LGBTQ people at risk if far right win French parliamentary elections

Since French President Emmanuel Macron lost the European elections to the far-right National Rally on June 9 and announced snap parliamentary elections, attacks on LGBTQ people have been deliberately political. Rights groups fear that if the far right come to power in under two weeks, laws put in place to protect LGBTQ people could be dismantled and violent attacks legitimised.


Issued on: 19/06/2024 - 

A drag queen takes part in a LGBTQ visibility march in Lyon, France, on June 16.

 © Olivier Chassignole, AFP

By:Lara BULLENS

As the European election results came pouring in on the evening of June 9, it became clear that France’s far-right Rassemblement National (National Rally or RN) would come out on top. And they did, with flying colours. Garnering 31.5 percent of the vote, the party led by Marine Le Pen outshone President Emmanuel Macron’s coalition with almost twice as many votes.

To celebrate the triumph, three Le Pen supporters in their twenties and a member of the violent far-right student group Groupe Union Défense (GUD) went out drinking in the sixth arrondissement of Paris. In search of a bar, they came across a young man walking home alone and approached him, armed with a stick and a belt. Slinging homophobic and transphobic slurs at the 19 year old and calling him a “filthy f**got”, they then punched him in the temple, according to French daily Libération.

Fleeing for safety, the young man headed towards a woman who witnessed the attack and called the police. The four perpetrators were arrested a few minutes later. While in custody, the men made direct references to Jordan Bardella, president of the National Rally. “You’ll see when Bardella is in power and Hitler comes back!” one threatened. “In three weeks, we will be able to smash up f*gs as much as we like. I can’t wait,” said another.

These are no empty threats. Shortly after his defeat in the European elections, Macron unexpectedly called for snap parliamentary elections and dissolved the current National Assembly. Defending his decision as a way to “give back the choice of our parliamentary future” to the French people, the high-risk gamble could see the president forced to appoint a far-right prime minister.

Read moreFrance’s Macron calls snap election in huge gamble after EU polls debacle

With two weeks left before the final vote on July 7, LGBTQ people in France are not only worried about the future of their rights but fear a far-right win will galvanise more homophobic and transphobic attacks like the one that took place in Paris ten days ago.
‘A climate of fear’

“This is why I vote for Marine Le Pen,” a woman aggressively told Ben and Szabi, owners of the Hotel Pinard wine bar in the southern French city of Montpellier on Saturday. “In three years’ time [when the next presidential elections will take place], your bar will be shut down!”

Ben and Szabi, a Franco-Hungarian gay couple who have been together for ten years, opened the wine bar together in 2023. After kindly asking the woman to drink water out of a glass rather than the jug it was in, they were met with homophobic and racist slurs. It was after politely asking the woman and her friends to leave their establishment that she came back to threaten them. “We don’t want this to happen to other people,” Ben said in a post on Instagram. “We are still very shocked.”

France is not new to homophobic and transphobic attacks. In fact, they have been on the rise. LGBTQ groups sounded the alarm on May 16 when the ministry of the interior published a report documenting a 13 percent jump in anti-LGBTQ offences in 2023, compared to 2022. Attacks of a more violent nature, including assaults, threats and harassment, saw a 19 percent spike – with a total of 2,870 cases reported by French police last year.

Now that a far-right leader could potentially become prime minister, the LGBTQ community in France fear these incidents will become more widespread. “These two cases [in Paris and Montpellier] were particularly striking because there were direct references to the National Rally. The motivation was extremely clear,” said Julia Torlet, president and spokesperson for SOS Homophobie – a French NGO that supports victims of anti-LGBTQ attacks.

“We have a helpline and receive many reports of attacks every day,” said Torlet. “But it has become clear that now, a climate of fear has been instilled. People are telling us that they don’t want to leave their homes, that they are scared.”

Blaming a “liberation of homophobic and transphobic speech” inspired by the far right, Torlet said that her organisation has seen a spike in cases of offensive graffiti tags since Macron announced the snap elections on June 9.

And the violence is not only taking place in the streets. Édouard Jouannault-Taylor is head of communications at the Refuge foundation, an organisation tasked with supporting and housing young LGBTQ people in shelters across France who are persecuted by their families. He said that his organisation has seen more “extremist” views become commonplace in recent years, which paves the way for conflict in family settings. “Homophobic and transphobic speech is being liberated. But it goes beyond that, acts are now being liberated too,” he said.

“It is something that we have seen in other European countries. When [far-right leaders] come to power, they don’t always display their homophobia or transphobia outright. But their supporters have no problem in doing so,” said Jouannault-Taylor. “It frees up the energy of all those who oppose LGBTQ rights. That is what we are afraid of.”
Trying to cultivate an LGBTQ-friendly image

Before it was renamed the National Rally, the far-right party was known as the National Front and was founded by Marine Le Pen’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen in 1972. A deeply homophobic figure, Jean-Marie Le Pen once equated AIDS sufferers to “lepers” and described being gay as a “political ideology” – comments for the likes of which he was eventually put on trial in 2018.

Since she took over the party in 2011, Marine Le Pen has tried to soften its racist and homophobic reputation. And though she has even back-pedalled on some of her own pledges, like revoking marriage equality, her political agenda is still a threat to queer rights.

“The National Rally has tried to make itself look more gay-friendly, especially by including gay men in its ranks,” said Torlet. “It’s a way of saying ‘look, there are gays among us, so we are approachable’.”

Le Pen consistently voted against allowing lesbian couples from accessing assisted reproductive techniques, for example, but the law was eventually changed in 2021 to allow lesbian and single women to access the treatment – as well as in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

“And when you look at how the party voted on nine recent laws around LGBTQ rights in the European Parliament, for example, you see that they voted against or abstained eight times out of nine,” Torlet said. “I find that extraordinarily telling.”

As an MEP for the National Rally, Bardella and other members of the party voted against a resolution that condemned Poland for creating zones “free from any LGBTQ ideology” in 2019. They also voted against a declaration designed to make the EU a “freedom zone” for LGBTQ people in 2021. And in 2023, far-right MEPs abstained when an EU vote on the universal decriminalisation of homosexuality was passed.

On the home front, MPs from both the National Rally and the right-wing Les Républicains recently tabled bills that would ban hormone treatment for transgender people under 18. Met with fierce opposition by protestors, the bill was eventually adopted by the Senate on May 29 – but has yet to be put to a final vote in the National Assembly, France’s lower house.

If more far-right and right-wing MPs are voted into parliament after the elections on July 7, the bill has a chance of becoming law.
‘Major consequences’ on rights and safety of LGBTQ community

When it comes to the real dangers LGBTQ people face if the far right comes to power, Torlet explains that “there are two major types of consequences”. The first is legal, and the law on transgender medical treatment for minors is a “concrete example” of a “real threat” to LGBTQ rights.

“If the law passes, [I think] there will be more attacks on the rights of trans people. They will be the first target, that is clear and simple,” said Torlet. “The second target will be same-sex families. We have already seen that happen in neighbouring European countries, like Italy, for example, where [Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni]’s far-right government was quick to crack down on the rights of LGBTQ families.”

Read more‘Ghost parents’: Same-sex couples in Italy are losing their rights

Fear of the far right chiselling away at transgender rights is a sentiment shared by Jouannault-Taylor. “Many of the young people that we house in our shelters are transgender. [If the far-right] comes to power, public policies could be directed against them, against their rights, against their self-determination and their right to realise their full potential,” he said.

The Refuge foundation has also set up a support system for asylum seekers who have had to flee their country because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Given the staunchly anti-immigrant posture of the National Rally, Jouannault-Taylor is worried this demographic “will no longer be able to be accompanied here in France”.

Beyond dismantling the legal rights LGBTQ people in France have fought for, Torlet said the “second major consequence” will be most visible in “people’s daily lives”, especially regarding the violence they may face in the streets.

“If we have a government that adopts uninhibited discriminatory language … in the streets, people will feel it's legitimate to unleash violence with impunity,” she said.
‘A pretty irresponsible sacrifice’

The first round of parliamentary elections will be held in less than two weeks, on June 30, with a final vote set for July 7. Opinion polls have consistently placed the National Rally first but pollsters who have tried to make a second-round forecast for France's 577 constituencies see the party failing to secure the absolute majority needed to be able to pass laws without allies.

Which is exactly why party president Bardella told CNews TV on Tuesday that “in order to act, I need an absolute majority”, and urged voters to rally behind him and Le Pen. He even told France 2 TV on Tuesday that he would turn down the chance to be prime minister should his voters not hand his party an absolute majority.

The National Rally would need to secure 289 seats for an absolute majority. But even if they don’t, Bardella or Le Pen could still become the next prime minister. In France, it is up to the president to elect a prime minister of his or her choosing.


Daily newsletterReceive essential international news every morningSubscribe

Torlet thinks that “Macron’s decision to dissolve parliament was a way for him to try and discredit the National Rally before the 2027 presidential elections”. She believes his strategy is that “for three years, everyone will see whether or not the RN is fit to rule, and will eventually understand that they should not vote for them.

“Except that minorities will be sacrificed on the altar of this [three-year] test. Three years just to discredit the National Rally is a pretty irresponsible sacrifice.”

And in the run-up to the parliamentary elections, Torlet says that “every word counts” for LGBTQ people.

Visiting the island of Sein off the north-western coast of France on Tuesday, Macron chose to adopt the same language used by his far-right counterparts. Speaking to local residents, he criticised the left’s proposal to allow people to register a gender change by simply going to the town hall as “completely grotesque”. Under current regulations, people must go to court and undergo a cumbersome and stigmatising procedure to register a gender change.

In his 2022 presidential campaign, Macron had proposed to make the lives of transgender people easier by getting rid of unnecessary red tape.

 OPINION

Fiscal Policy Can Help Broaden the Gains of Artificial Intelligence to Humanity

By Era Dabla-Norris and Ruud de Mooij

WASHINGTON DC, Jun 19 2024 (IPS) - New generative-AI technologies hold immense potential for boosting productivity and improving the delivery of public services, but the sheer speed and scale of the transformation also raise concerns about job losses and greater inequality. Given uncertainty over the future of AI, governments should take an agile approach that prepares them for highly disruptive scenarios.

A new IMF paper argues that fiscal policy has a major role to play in supporting a more equal distribution of gains and opportunities from generative-AI. But this will require significant upgrades to social-protection and tax systems around the world.

How should social-protection policies be revamped in the face of disruptive technological changes from AI?

While AI could eventually boost overall employment and wages, it could put large swaths of the labor force out of work for extended periods, making for a painful transition.

Lessons from past automation waves and the IMF’s modeling suggest more generous unemployment insurance could cushion the negative impact of AI on workers, allowing displaced workers to find jobs that better match their skills.

Most countries have considerable scope to broaden the coverage and generosity of unemployment insurance, improve portability of entitlements, and consider forms of wage insurance.

At the same time, sector-based training, apprenticeships, and upskilling and reskilling programs could play a greater role in preparing workers for the jobs of the AI age. Comprehensive social-assistance programs will be needed for workers facing long-term unemployment or reduced local labor demand due to automation or industry closures.

To be sure, there will be important differences in how AI impacts emerging-market and developing economies—and thus, how policymakers there should respond. While workers in such countries are less exposed to AI, they are also less protected by formal social-protection programs such as unemployment insurance because of larger informal sectors in their economies. Innovative approaches leveraging digital technologies can facilitate expanded coverage of social-assistance programs in these countries.

Should AI be taxed to mitigate labor-market disruptions and pay for its effects on workers? In the face of similar concerns, some have recommended a robot tax to discourage firms from displacing workers with robots.

Yet, a tax on AI is not advisable. Your AI chatbot or co-pilot wouldn’t be able to pay such a tax—only people can do that. A specific tax on AI might instead reduce the speed of investment and innovation, stifling productivity gains. It would also be hard to put into practice and, if ill-targeted, do more harm than good.

So, what can be done to rebalance tax policy in the age of AI? In recent decades, some advanced countries have scaled up corporate tax breaks on software and computer hardware in an effort to drive innovation.

However, these incentives also tend to encourage companies to replace workers through automation. Corporate tax systems that inefficiently favor the rapid displacement of human jobs should be reconsidered, given the risk that they could magnify the dislocations from AI.

Many emerging market and developing countries tend to have corporate tax systems that discourage automation. That can be distortive in its own way, preventing the investments that would enable such countries to catch up in the new global AI economy.

How should governments design redistributive taxation to offset rising inequality from AI? Generative-AI, like other types of innovation, can lead to higher income inequality and concentration of wealth.

Taxes on capital income should thus be strengthened to protect the tax base against a further decline in labor’s share of income and to offset rising wealth inequality. This is crucial, as more investment in education and social spending to broaden the gains from AI will require more public revenue.

Since the 1980s, the tax burden on capital income has steadily declined in advanced economies while the burden on labor income has climbed.

To reverse this trend, strengthening corporate income taxes could help. The global minimum tax agreed by over 140 countries, which establishes a minimum 15-percent effective tax rate on multinational companies, is a step in the right direction. Other measures could include a supplemental tax on excess profits, stronger taxes on capital gains, and improved enforcement.

The latest AI breakthroughs represent the fruit of years of investment in fundamental research, including through publicly funded programs. Similarly, decisions made now by policymakers will shape the evolution of AI for decades to come.

The priority should be to ensure that applications broadly benefit society, leveraging AI to improve outcomes in areas such as education, health and government services. And given the global reach of this powerful new technology, it will be more important than ever for countries to work together.

Fernanda Brollo, Daniel Garcia-Macia, Tibor Hanappi, Li Liu, and Anh Dinh Minh Nguyen also contributed to the staff discussion note on which this blog is based.

Source: IMF

 

Protesters rally against events like F1 turning Barcelona into ‘theme park’

About 100 grassroots groups staged the demonstration as cars drove along the city’s most exclusive street

Barcelona residents protest against a Formula One road show on the city’s Passeig de Gracia (Photo: Reuters/Bruna Casas)

By Graham Keeley

June 19, 2024 

MADRID – Scores of protesters demonstrated against Formula One cars racing through the heart of Barcelona on Wednesday, claiming such events turned the city into “a theme park”.

About 100 grassroots groups staged the protest as the cars drove along the city’s most exclusive street, Passeig de Gracia, on a short track taking in surrounding roads.

The rally comes after protesters clashed with police outside the Louis Vuitton fashion show held last month in Parc Güell, a Unesco World Heritage Site designed by Antoni Gaudi.

A Barcelona resident named Robert posted a picture of Parc Güell on social media platform X and wrote: “Between this and F1 on Passeig de Gracia it is clear that [city mayor] Jaume Collboni wants to turn Barcelona into a theme park.

“And you don’t have to, we already have Madrid for that. How delusional are those who thought that we would do better with Collboni than with [former mayor Ada] Colau.”

Wednesday’s demonstration follows a clash with police at last month’s Vuitton show in Parc Güell (Photo: Reuters/Bruna Casas)

Mr Collboni, the Socialist mayor of Barcelona who has held the post for a year, is expected to bring in a more business-friendly administration than that of Ms Colau, a far-left politician who cracked down on tourism.

Read Next

WORLD

Mallorca protesters jeer and shout at tourists to leave popular beach

Read More

Cycling clubs, a left-wing political party, sporting groups and the Federation of Neighbourhood Associations of Barcelona organised the protest “against the privatisation of the public space just to benefit tourism lobbies”.

“Barcelona should no longer be a showcase city and once again become a city for its residents,” Jaume Artigas, from the Eixample district’s neighbourhood association, told i.

Roger Torrent, a Barcelona councillor with responsibility for business, said: “It’s true that these events annoy [some people] but the benefits and the impact that they bring make it worth it.”

The F1 Barcelona Fan Festival, a week-long event leading up to the weekend’s Spanish Grand Prix near the Catalan capital, will see Ferraris and Red Bull cars tear through the streets in the centre of the city.

About 100 grassroots groups staged the protest as the cars drove along the city’s most exclusive street (Photo: Reuters/Bruna Casas)

A fan zone will give Formula One fans the chance to see the cars up close and get a taste of driving them via video simulators.

Casa Battló, another Gaudí-designed building that is popular with tourists, will feature a VIP stand while a children’s track with go-karts has also been set up.

The protest against the race comes after a string of anti-tourism protests in Spain, from the Canary Islands to the Balearics to Malaga.

Anti-Defamation League to be banned as source by Wikipedia over 'unreliability' on Gaza, antisemitism

The ADL will be banned as a source by Wikipedia editors for conflating criticism of Israel and support of Palestinians with antisemitism.

The New Arab Staff
19 June, 2024

The ADL often tries to suppress criticism of Israel by labelling it 'antisemitic' [Getty/file photo]


Wikipedia editors have concluded that the pro-Israeli Anti-Defamation League (ADL) advocacy group is a "generally unreliable" source of information on Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip, and are moving to list the group among banned or partially banned sources.

Editors who voted in favour of the ban focused on the ADL's behaviour during Israel's war in Gaza, which has killed 37,396 Palestinians since 7 October. They also took into account the ADL's conduct during a wave of pro-Palestinian student protests which have swept US college campuses this year as the war on Gaza continued.

Following a vote, the online encyclopedia's editors also agreed by an overwhelming majority that the organisation should not be treated as a trusted source on antisemitism, following the ADL’s track record of labelling legitimate criticism of Israel as antisemitic.

A formal declaration regarding this is expected to occur next week, The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) reported on Tuesday.

"The ADL no longer appears to adhere to a serious, mainstream and intellectually cogent definition of antisemitism, but has instead given into the shameless politicisation of the very subject that it was originally esteemed for being reliable on," wrote an editor known as Iskandar323, as cited by Israeli media.

Wikipedia’s decision comes months after editors have debated the ADL’s legitimacy as a trustworthy source.

Editors took into account incidents such the ADL's CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, comparing Palestinian keffiyehs to swastikas, labelling pro-Palestinian students as "Iran proxies" and comparing anti-Zionism to white supremacy.

Wikipedia article on Nuseirat massacre sparks edit war

Greenblatt has a history of attacking any criticism of Israel and Zionism, often labelling this "antisemitic".

The group has slammed the decision, calling it a campaign to "delegitimise the ADL". In a statement, the ADL said: "This is a sad development for research and education, but ADL will not be daunted in our age-old fight against antisemitism and all forms of hate."

Wikipedia editors also considered the ADL's usage of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which has been described as problematic by some campaigners and experts who say it conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

The ADL's other controversies include calling on law enforcement agencies to probe pro-Palestinian student activist groups, and backing anti-Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) laws in the US.

The New York-based group has also helped organise police training trips to Israel, enabling US police officers to learn techniques from the country's law enforcement, who often brutally suppress Palestinians.

Speaking in January on condition of anonymity to the UK’s The Guardian website, one ADL employee said the group "has a pro-Israel bias and an agenda to suppress pro-Palestinian activism".

The Wikipedia editors’ decision now groups the ADL with right-wing outlets such as The National Enquiry and Newsmax, as a a source of misinformation.

 

ADL faces Wikipedia ban over reliability concerns on Israel and anti-semitism

Anti-Defamation League joins the National Inquirer, Newsmax, and Occupy Democrats as a source of propaganda or misinformation in the eyes of the online encyclopedia

By ASAF ELIA-SHALEV (JTA)June 19, 2024, 10:43 am

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt speaks at the group's 2018 National Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C. (Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images via JTA).

Wikipedia’s editors have voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League “generally unreliable” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, adding it to a list of banned and partially banned sources.

An overwhelming majority of editors involved in the debate about the ADL also voted to deem the organisation unreliable on the topic of antisemitism, its core focus. A formal declaration on that count is expected next.

The decision about Israel-related citations, made last week, means that one of the most prominent and longstanding Jewish advocacy groups in the United States — and one historically seen as the leading U.S. authority on antisemitism — is now grouped together with the National Inquirer, Newsmax, and Occupy Democrats as a source of propaganda or misinformation in the eyes of the online encyclopedia.

Moreover, in a near consensus, dozens of Wikipedia editors involved in the discussion said they believe the ADL should not be cited for factual information on antisemitism as well because it acts primarily as a pro-Israel organization and tends to label legitimate criticism of Israel as antisemitism.

“ADL no longer appears to adhere to a serious, mainstream and intellectually cogent definition of antisemitism, but has instead given into the shameless politicization of the very subject that it was originally esteemed for being reliable on,” wrote an editor known as Iskandar323, whose request for a discussion about the ADL ultimately led to the ban.

In a written statement, the ADL said the decision by Wikipedia was the result of a ”campaign to delegitimise the ADL” and that editors opposing the ban “provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter.”

“This is a sad development for research and education, but ADL will not be daunted in our age-old fight against antisemitism and all forms of hate,” the statement said.

The ADL’s ability to fulfill its mission is directly tied to its credibility, which has taken a significant hit with the decision by Wikipedia, said James Loeffler, a professor of Jewish history at Johns Hopkins University.

“The online arena is a major source of threats,” Loeffler said. “Losing this mark of trust will impair the ADL’s ability to reach digital audiences and counter online hatred. We desperately need solid, evidence-based data analysis of contemporary antisemitism. Without a trusted authority, we’re likely to see only more politicization and polarisation to the detriment of all, especially vulnerable Jews.”

Wikipedia’s volunteer editors have debated the reliability of the ADL for years, as the group has come under criticism off of the platform from both the left and the right. But concerns coalesced into a new discussion about banning the group as a source in April, which was followed by months of discussion featuring hundreds of comments from dozens of editors.

A relatively small minority of editors sought to defend the ADL, arguing that the organization’s statistics and analysis are widely cited by many news outlets that are themselves trusted by Wikipedia. The defenders said critics of the group managed to show that the ADL may be biased or partisan but not that it publishes false information.

Editors supporting the ban focused on the ADL’s conduct following Oct. 7, Israel’s subsequent war with Hamas and the wave of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on college campuses.

Many editors said the organisation had undermined its credibility by altering how it categorises antisemitic incidents. Its new methodology included many pro-Palestinian protests in its annual audit of antisemitism, which reported a large spike over the previous year.

Also cited were a series of controversial statements by ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, who has claimed student protests were Iranian proxies, compared the keffiyeh head scarf to the swastika, praised Elon Musk after he promoted an antisemitic post on his social media platform X, and compared anti-Zionism to white supremacy. Editors pointed to news reporting about a staff revolt in January against Greenblatt’s statements.

The two sides lingered on a controversial definition of antisemitism that the ADL embraces. Authored by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the so-called IHRA definition has been endorsed by hundreds of universities, companies, and local governments, as well as the U.S. House of Representatives. But the definition has also proven contentious with critics who say the definition is too broad and could be used to stifle pro-Palestinian speech.

Many of the critiques from the Wikipedia editors are things people on the political left have been saying for years, according to Dov Waxman, director of the Center for Israel Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“On the left, the ADL is often dismissed and regarded as a bad actor or propaganda outfit,” Waxman said. “But if that starts to move beyond just the left and Wikipedia and other sources and the journalists start ignoring the ADL’s data, it becomes a real issue for Jewish Americans who are understandably concerned about the rise of antisemitism.”

By deeming the ADL “generally unreliable,” Wikipedia is telling users that “the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person.” Wikipedia is not poised ban the ADL outright; enough editors have argued that some aspects of the ADL’s work, such as its database of hate symbols, should still be considered an acceptable source.

The argument among editors over whether ADL is factually unreliable or merely biased or opinionated follows recent debates over how to classify some prominent conservative news outlets. Wikipedia has repeatedly revisited the question of Fox News, each time affirming that it is not reliable on the topic of politics and science. Earlier this year, a consensus was reached that the New York Post should not be used as a source, especially for politics.

It’s not the first time that Wikipedia editors have examined the reliability of a Jewish source. In 2021, editors debated coverage of leftwing and Muslim groups by the Jewish Chronicle, a British newspaper, ultimately declaring it generally reliable despite concerns of bias. The same year, Wikipedia editors banned the online encyclopedia Jewish Virtual Library for most uses due to concerns about its accuracy and pro-Israel bias. Earlier this year, they banned NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based pro-Israel advocacy group.

Wikipedia has long been the site of important intellectual battles involving Jews and Israel, and the volunteer editors running the site have at times struggled to maintain order. Last year for example, a scandal broke out when a pair of academics alleged that a group of editors were systematically distorting Holocaust history on the platform. More recently, editing battles relating to pages about Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and its aftermath have regularly made news.

Mira Sucharov, a professor of political science at Carleton University, said Wikipedia’s decision represents a major opportunity to reflect on why the ADL is facing scrutiny and rethink communal approaches for fighting antisemitism.

“This is a sign that the Jewish community needs better institutions,” she said.