Loblaws boycott: Canadians cheer fake No Name cake ad that spoofs grocery giant, Galen Weston — 'Eat the rich'

A fake No Name advertisement postered to a Calgary bus shelter is just the latest satirical attack on Loblaw, as the grocery giant is the target of a national boycott

Elianna Lev
Updated Fri, June 14, 2024 


A fake No Name advertisement postered to a Calgary bus shelter is just the latest satirical attack on Loblaw, as the grocery giant is the target of a national boycott.


A fake No Name advertisement postered to a Calgary bus shelter is just the latest in a series of satirical attacks on Loblaw and its branding, as the grocery giant is the target of a national boycott started by a Reddit group called "Loblaws Is Out of Control."

The “ad” looks similar to the familiar No Name branding with straightforward messaging and bright yellow colour, except it features the word “Peasants” above a box of chocolate cake that is labeled “Let them eat cake deluxe cake mix” in both French and English. At the bottom, a suggested serving encourages bakers to “Eat the Rich."
No surprise Loblaw's 'unbranded' brand is being targeted: Expert

Brad Davis is an associate professor of marketing at Wilfrid Laurier University. He says No Name, which was launched by Loblaw in 1978, is meant as a no frills, in-store “unbranded” brand.


It’s intended to give customers straight pricing competition, while allowing the grocery giant to save on having to pay middlemen. That way, they can invest on improving the quality of the products by keeping it in-house.

“They serve a purpose of being a discount brand for (products) where most people don’t perceive there’s a significant difference between the No Name brand and more expensive, well-known brands,” David tells Yahoo Canada.

Loblaw and its affiliate stores carry products under the "No Name" brand. (R.J. Johnston/Toronto Star via Getty Images)

In turn, the company will promote the in-house brands more, so they are able to make more money off of them.

Davis says it’s not surprising that the No Name brand is being targeted in the midst of the ongoing national boycott of Loblaw and its affiliated stores, like Shoppers Drug Mart, Zehrs, Real Canadian Superstore, No Frills and the flagship Loblaws. The boycott was organized for the month of May by the "Loblaws Is Out of Control" Reddit group, and has been extended indefinitely.

Davis classifies the fake No Name ad as “subvertising,” or subversive advertising, which is a spoof or parody of corporate advertisement with the intention of making a statement.

“There is a whole underground mentality that takes shots at brands and a lot of the marketing stuff, and now with Photoshop, some of the quality of the graffiti they do is very professional,” he says.

A notable example is Adbusters, a Vancouver-based anti-consumerist media company known for its subversive advertising. Some of the brands targeted by Adbusters have included Coca Cola and Nike.

Loblaw and its affiliate stores carry products under the "No Name" brand. (R.J. Johnston/Toronto Star via Getty Images)
Loblaw has been spoofed before: 'Roblaws' T-shirts and more merch

This is not the first time Loblaw branding has been a target of satirical criticism. In February, Toronto-based artist Christopher Lambe produced a series of T-shirts, buttons and magnets that feature a pun on Loblaws and a play on the store's tagline. The merchandise featured the word "Roblaw$" with the S replaced by a dollar sign. The tagline, originally "Live Life Well," was altered to "Live Life Hungry." The parodic logo was changed to an image of a gun and a basket.

After uploading the inventory to his Etsy account, Lambe was hit by an Intellectual Properties infringement case filed to the online retailer by the Loblaw corporation, and the merch was taken down.

After Lambe challenged the takedown, he says Etsy never gave evidence of his violation, so he put the shirts back up on his account.

Lambe has since expanded his merchandise to include T-shirts that parody Shoppers Drug Mart, which read “Shoppers Thug Mart” and “Westons Lack Heart” and are being sold on another website.

He tells Yahoo Canada that he has sold over 2,000 shirts so far.

A Toronto-based artist, Christopher Lambe (right), whose parody T-shirts target large corporations is catching the ire of Loblaw after he featured an edgy take on the grocery giant's logo and slogan.
Canadians react to No Name parody cake ad: 'The satire is rich and moist'

The poster, which was shared to the Reddit forum "Loblaws Is Out of Control," has garnered more than 8,000 upvotes and hundreds of comments. Though the artist responsible for the ad has not made themselves known, Canadians ran to their defense and have already offered to start a crowd-funding campaign for their creativity.

“Cake mix, $1; Ingredients you have to add, $15,” Frosty-Cap3344 wrote.

“The satire is rich and moist,” Longjumping-Bag-8260 wrote.

"I really love the use of the big bold 'peasants' at the top," user cinnamon_sparkle27 wrote. "This design is so well done that at first glance you would actually think it’s a legitimate Loblaws ad."

Loblaw and its affiliate stores carry products under the "No Name" brand. (R.J. Johnston/Toronto Star via Getty Images)

"Politician with robes": Expert says secret tape exposes Samuel Alito's "apocalyptic vision"

HE VIEWS ABORTION AS WITCHCRAFT!

Tatyana Tandanpolie

SALON
Thu, June 13, 2024 

Samuel Alito Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images

Secret tapes of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito released publicly Monday have plunged the conservative justice and the high court into deeper controversy, exposing a conversation that saw Alito endorsing ultra-conservative hot-takes.

The audio, obtained and first reported by Rolling Stone, came just weeks after reports of far-right-aligned flags being flown outside Alito's home sparked widespread backlash. The reports follow a year of ethics scandal-exposés involving both him and Justice Clarence Thomas. The newly revealed recordings have similarly prompted harsh rebuke of the justice, with legal experts decrying Alito's boosting of Christian nationalist rhetoric on the tapes as unethical.

"Justice Alito’s recorded comments aren’t so much revealing as they are confirming," James Sample, a Hofstra University constitutional law professor, told Salon. "They reinforce what we already know: that Justice Alito sees his raison d’etre as being more of an ideological culture warrior more than a jurist. And he’s indisputably winning the wars he is waging."

The bevy of revelations have also intensified public scrutiny of the Supreme Court in the wake of a series of contentious decisions in recent years, including eliminating federal protections for abortion care and gutting race-based affirmative action, and have led ethics watchdogs and government officials to declare that an externally enforced ethics code be imposed on the justices, a call that Senate Democrats renewed by seeking to pass a binding-ethics code proposal Wednesday in light of the new tapes.

These new tapes mark "yet another self-inflicted wound on the part of the Supreme Court," according to David Schultz, a professor of legal studies and political science at Hamline University.

"We've seen this gradual deterioration of support for the courts, and it's clearly collapsed after the Dobbs opinion. I mean, none of this is going to turn it around," Schultz told Salon, adding: "It's just going to further erode support for the judiciary. And I hate to say this at a time where you've got [former president Donald Trump] attacking the court system and where you really need people to be defending the courts."

Alito's conversation occurred during the Supreme Court Historical Society's annual dinner earlier this month and was recorded by liberal documentary filmmaker Lauren Windsor, who describes herself as an "advocacy journalist" and has a reputation for secretly recording conservatives.

Windsor, who attended the event under her real name and peppered Alito with questions aligned with far-right ideology, got the justice to offer up his perspective on the opinions she touted. At one point in their exchange, she received an endorsement from the justice of her argument that ending the nation's political polarization by negotiating with the political left not possible, and that it's a matter of "winning" rather than compromise.

“I think you’re probably right,” Alito told Windsor. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

In another instance, Alito said he agreed with her position that the country's Christian population has "got to keep fighting" to “return our country to a place of godliness.”


EXCLUSIVE UNDERCOVER AUDIO:
Sam Alito x John Roberts x The Undercurrent 🧵

1/ Justice Alito admits lack of impartiality with the Left, says: “One side or the other is going to win.” pic.twitter.com/b5nmxToZ9z

— Lauren Windsor (@lawindsor) June 10, 2024

Schultz argued that the problems with the exchange are three-fold. First, it presents "almost an apocalyptic vision of American politics" of "dual-contending forces" that Alito appears to hint the resolution to aligns more with a "Christian vision." The second arises from his articulation of this vision, which flies in the face of the "myth" that these "justices are apolitical" and supposed to avoid "abandoning the neutrality."

Third, Alito's statements on the recording also appear to "reinforce both the appearance and the reality that he's voting ideology," that he's not "reading the Constitution neutrally," Schultz continued.

Windsor also secretly taped a conversation Chief Justice John Roberts at the dinner, but his responses to a line of questioning similar to what his colleague received appeared to come in sharp contrast to Alito's, ringing more neutral.

Roberts, according to The New York Times, instead, pushed back against Windsor's assertion that the court had to return the county to a more "moral path."

“Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” Roberts rebutted. “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.”

When Windsor expressed views that the U.S. is a "Christian nation" and the Supreme Court "should be guiding us in that path," the chief justice also disagreed, offering a more pluralistic counterpoint.

“I don’t know if that’s true," he said, adding: “I don’t know that we live in a Christian nation. I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say maybe not, and it’s not our job to do that.”

2/ Chief Justice Roberts denies that America is a Christian nation. pic.twitter.com/hb3iFa5Jnv

— Lauren Windsor (@lawindsor) June 10, 2024

While Schultz said Roberts still shouldn't have addressed the questions, the chief justice's responses reflected a "more classic view" in terms of acknowledging the array of perspectives in the nation even with his orientation as a conservative justice.

"Roberts looks like he's a Chief Justice trying to defend the institution of the Supreme Court by at least coming across and looking somewhat more neutral," Schultz said. By comparison, Alito "looks like he's an advocate now," Schultz argued, adding: "He's the politician with robes."

"Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito often reach similar results on the merits," Sample added. "The difference is the extent to which they respect judicial norms."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Charles Geyh, a scholar of judicial ethics and law professor at Indiana University's Maurer School of Law, told Salon that, while he was still "troubled" by Alito's responses — calling Alito's rejection of political compromise disheartening — he finds the justice's comments to reflect a different interpretation of Windsor's questioning from that of Roberts.

Alito appeared to answer the questions, not in an official capacity, but as a conservative with matching views, Geyh said, whereas Roberts seemed to interpret the questioning from the perspective of his role as chief justice and the aims of the court.

"From a judicial ethics standpoint, I would have been deeply troubled if [Alito] had made it clear that he was saying the court needs to be turning us in a more godly direction, that the court needs to assert moral authority and move us to a particular place, that he, as a justice, sees it as his role to interpret the First Amendment — more specifically, the Freedom of Religion clause, the Establishment Clause — in a way that turns us to a godlier nation," Geyh, told Salon. "Then, I'd be flinging flares in the air. But I don't interpret him answering the question that way."

A 2002 Supreme Court decision, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, held that state Supreme Court justices have a First Amendment right to voice their personal opinions on issues in the context of running for a judgeship, Geyh explained, arguing that the same thing applies here insofar as judges having opinions that they're entitled to.

While allowing his personal views to guide his decision-making on the bench is one of the ethics abuses critics have accused Alito of, especially in the wake of his recent scandals, Geyh argued that Alito's responses on the tape don't offer enough information about how he approaches his role to indicate that his personal beliefs do more than influence his read of the law in close cases as opposed to usurping his approach to his duties and decision making.

"Even if Alito thinks that we need a godlier nation, that doesn't automatically mean that he's going to disregard the First Amendment," said Geyh, who also previously served as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee.

While the justice's remarks do offer insight into his belief and how they may inform his legal views, Geyh continued, it "leads us down a path that's illegitimate if he basically is saying, 'Law be damned, I'm going to impose my personal views.' But if what we're saying is, 'The law is ambiguous. It's unclear how this case should be resolved under the establishment clause or the freedom of religion clause, and I am doing my best to interpret it as it should be understood, and my views inevitably influence the way I think about what outcome's best,' that's not illegitimate. That's just the way the world works in close cases."

Still, Geyh said, in a political climate when activists like Windsor are "arguably playing gotcha games" and the court's legitimacy is suffering in the public eye, in part, because of beliefs "bipartisan politics and agendas" drive the justices' decisions, the recent incidents signify the importance of judges being "cautious" and "ever-mindful of how their conduct has been politicized, and they have politicized their conduct themselves," especially in the case of a "political lightning rod" like Alito.

"It's not openly, affirmatively unethical for them to do what he did, but I think the preferred course is to stay under the radar, to do what you can to preserve your open mindedness as best you can and not lock yourself in in public statements that imply that you've got an ax to grind," he explained, referencing canon two of the ethics code the Supreme Court adopted last year.

The Supreme Court Historical Society's executive director, James Duff, condemned Windsor's "surreptitious recording of Justices at the event" as "inconsistent with the entire spirit of the evening" in a statement Monday. “Our policy is to ensure that all attendees, including the Justices, are treated with respect," Duff said.

Windsor, however, has defended her actions, explaining that she felt she had no other means of reporting on the justices' true thoughts.

“We have a court that has refused to submit to any accountability whatsoever — they are shrouded in secrecy,” Windsor said, per The Times. “I don’t know how, other than going undercover, I would have been able to get answers to these questions.”

On Tuesday night, Windsor dropped another undercover audio of Alito, recorded by a colleague at the same June 3 dinner.

In the latest tape, the justice appeared to blame partisan funding for the coverage of the Supreme Court's undisclosed lavish gifts and travel, specifically citing ProPublica, which published a series of bombshell reports in the last year on Alito and Thomas' failure to report the gifts on annual disclosures.

Asked why the Supreme Court is being "so attacked" and "targeted by the media these days," Alito responded plainly.

“They don’t like our decisions, and they don’t like how they anticipate we may decide some cases that are coming up. That’s the beginning of the end of it,” he said, according to Rolling Stone. “There are groups that are very well-funded by ideological groups that have spearheaded these attacks," he added. "That’s what it is.

EXCLUSIVE UNDERCOVER AUDIO feat. the debut of my colleague @Ally_Sammarco:
Alito v @ProPublica

Justice Alito rants on ProPublica and minimizes Justice Thomas’ extraordinary ethics breaches as “any little thing they can find" pic.twitter.com/HXFlaxRpWm

— Lauren Windsor (@lawindsor) June 12, 2024

Alito, Roberts secret recordings spark ethics concerns

FOR WHO?!

Dominick Mastrangelo
Thu, June 13, 2024 

A liberal activist’s secret recordings of two Supreme Court justices has engulfed the nation’s highest court into political controversy, while also raising questions about the ethics in how the conversations were obtained.

The activist, Lauren Windsor, approached conservative Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts while wearing a concealed recording device at the Supreme Court Historical Society gala earlier this month.

Windsor attended as a member under her own name, but posed as a Catholic conservative with the explicit goal of eliciting unfiltered, controversial comments from those in attendance.

Windsor has argued going undercover was the only way to expose what she and many liberals have said is the court’s unacceptable right-wing tilt and the personal bitterness of its conservatives.

But critics contend Windsor crossed a line by misrepresenting herself to obtain the recordings, and warn her move might have further opened a Pandora’s box of political dirty tricks in the midst of an increasingly contentious election year.

“I worry about the cascading effect that something like this can have,” said William Howell, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy. “It invites people with whom she disagrees with ideologically to do much the same and point to her actions as justification for doing it.”

On one recording, Windsor, who has a history of using surreptitious methods to catch conservatives saying embarrassing things, captured Alito saying of the left and right, “One side or the other is going to win.”

Windsor also talked to the justice’s wife, Martha-Ann Alito, who is heard on the recording promising revenge on the people who have raised controversy surrounding her and her husband.

The audio’s publication sparked instant outrage from court watchers and the historical society itself.

“We condemn the surreptitious recording of Justices at the event, which is inconsistent with the entire spirit of the evening,” the organization said in a statement to The Hill. “Attendees are advised that discussion of current cases, cases decided by this Court, or a Justice’s jurisprudence is strictly prohibited and may result in forfeiture of membership in the Society.”

Windsor did not respond to a request for comment from The Hill this week but in various media interviews has expressed no regret for her reporting methods.

The activist insists that recording the justices secretly was the only way she would have been able to shine a light on their personal beliefs.

“To people who want to pearl-clutch about this, please tell me how we’re going to get answers when the Supreme Court has been shrouded in secrecy and really refusing any degree of accountability whatsoever,” she said Tuesday on CNN.

During a subsequent appearance on cable news channel NewsNation, Windsor pushed back on suggestions she baited Alito into making controversial comments.

“I don’t think that I was baiting him,” she insisted. “I think that it coaxed him into a position that either was already held or that he came to that over the past year.”

Windsor’s expose comes amid a whirlwind time for the conservative-majority court, which has seen its objectivity and political independence questioned, particularly by those on the political left.

ProPublica has reported extensively in recent months on alleged ethics violations by members of the court while just last month, the Alitos were embroiled in a controversy over various flags flying over their properties.

Outside observers to the latest scandal say the increased scrutiny of conservatives on the court in recent months undermines Windsor’s argument that her recordings were revelatory enough to justify the means she used.

“We didn’t learn very much we didn’t already know from this,” said Susan Keith, a professor of media studies at Rutgers University. “There was nothing in what Alito said to her that you wouldn’t already expect to hear from him publicly.”

Covert operations and secret recordings with political agendas in mind are nothing new in modern election cycles and semiregular partisan publicity fights.

The right-wing group Project Veritas was well known during the years of the Trump administration for using hidden cameras and secret recording devices to obtain audio and video of public health officials, journalists and other perceived enemies of the right making unflattering remarks or espousing personal opinions on matters of public debate.

“This sort of technique [on both sides] of sneaking up on people and secretly recording them is just not fair,” Keith said. “I just don’t think it’s necessary in most situations.”

Windsor has, at the same time, shown deft media strategy in rolling out the audio clips she captured at the June 3 gala.

On Wednesday, as Windsor was making the rounds on cable news, Rolling Stone published new audio of Alito, provided to the outlet by the activist, on which he is heard bashing ProPublica’s reporting on the court, saying “they don’t like our decisions.”

And while Windsor is receiving outsized attention for her clandestine recordings, some observers note her work should be viewed differently from mainstream journalists covering the court regularly.

“Every time a major mainstream news outlet or news organization promotes one of her stories, they’re essentially paying her money and sending millions of people to her website,” said John Watson,

 a professor of journalism at American University.

“In journalism using deception to get information is inherently unethical. However, if the information is absolutely important for the public to have and there’s no other way to get it … I have yet to see anything she has done that reaches that threshold.”

 The Hill.

Justice Clarence Thomas took more trips on GOP megadonor’s private plane than previously known

Tierney Sneed and John Fritze, CNN
Thu, June 13, 2024 

Justice Clarence Thomas took several more trips on the private plane of GOP megadonor Harlan Crow than were previously known, a top Senate Democrat revealed Thursday.

According to information obtained by Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, Thomas traveled on Crow’s private jet during trips in 2017, 2019 and 2021 between various US states, as well as on a previously known 2019 trip to Indonesia, during which Thomas also stayed on Crow’s mega-yacht.

The newly revealed private plane trips add to the picture of luxury travel enjoyed by Thomas and bankrolled by friends of the justice who have ties to conservative politics.

Thomas has come under fire for his failure to include such trips on financial disclosure forms the justices release each year, though he and his defenders argue that he followed the court’s disclosure rules as they were understood at the time.

The revelation was likely to add to the tension between the high court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority, and Democrats on Capitol Hill, who have been pushing for more than a year for tighter ethics rules. A series of ethics scandals involving Thomas and, more recently, Justice Samuel Alito, have left public approval of the court at historic lows.

Last year, amid stories by ProPublica on the justice’s jet-setting lifestyle, the federal judiciary’s policy-making body said that travel on private planes should be reported by the justices closing a loophole that Thomas said had exempted him from reporting the “personal hospitality” he had received form his uber-wealthy friends. The court’s critics argue that the current understanding of the disclosure rules should apply retroactively.

Thomas, through a court spokeswoman, did not respond to a CNN inquiry about the new revelations and why the trips were not disclosed.

He previously said that he was advised at the time that he was not required to disclose the hospitality he received from the Crows, but that he intended to follow the recent changes to the guidance going forward. His defenders have pointed to a 2012 letter from the Judicial Conference, which administers the regulations for judges’ financial disclosures, that cleared him of claims at the time that he should have been reporting his trips with Crow.

Last week, with the release of his financial disclosures for 2023, Thomas said he had “inadvertently omitted” from previous financial filings a hotel stay paid by the Crows during the 2019 trip to Indonesia and his accommodations that same year at a private club they are members of in Monte Rio, California.

Yet he did not disclose his travel on Crow’s private plane for either of those trips that was revealed by Durbin.

In addition to that trip, according to the documents released by Durbin, Thomas traveled on Crow’s plane from St. Louis to Montana and then on to Dallas in 2017; on a 2019 round trip from Washington, DC, to Savannah, Georgia; and on a 2021 round trip from Washington, DC, to San Jose, California.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis is producing new information - like what we’ve revealed today - and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” Durbin said in a statement that pointed to Supreme Court ethics legislation put forward by Senate Democrats. A procedural maneuver by Durbin on Wednesday to pass the bill on the Senate floor was blocked by Republicans.

Elliot Berke, an attorney for Thomas, said the trips Senate Democrats called attention to on Thursday fell under the “hospitality exemption.” Thomas and others have previously said they understood the disclosure rules to exclude situations involving “personal hospitality.”

“Consequently, and as Justice Thomas has already explained, he and many other federal judges were advised that they were not required to report gifts of personal hospitality from friends who did not have business before the Court,” Berke told CNN.

Mark Paoletta, a former top Trump administration official and prominent Thomas ally, similarly said on X that Thomas disclosed the hotel and private club stays from the previous trips because they were not covered under the personal hospitality exemption – even before the 2023 changes to the disclosure guidance. He argued that a justice’s stays on a friend’s “home, planes” and “boats” were exempted under the rules until the 2023 revision.

Durbin and other Democrats launched probes into gifts and lavish travel Thomas received after a bombshell ProPublica report that detailed the Indonesia trip with Crow – during which Thomas and his wife Ginni Thomas stayed on Crow’s 162-foot yacht – and other extravagant trips that the Thomases took with Crow and Crow’s wife.

Crow – whom Thomas has described as among his family’s “dearest friends” – has said that he has never talked to Thomas about matters in front of the judiciary.

“Mr. Crow reached an agreement with the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide information responsive to its requests going back seven years,” Crow spokesperson Michael Zona said of the information revealed Thursday.

“Despite his serious and continued concerns about the legality and necessity of the inquiry, Mr. Crow engaged in good faith negotiations with the Committee from the beginning to resolve the matter. As a condition of this agreement, the Committee agreed to end its probe with respect to Mr. Crow,” Zona added.

Clarence Thomas Was A More Frequent Flyer On Harlan Crow Air Than We Knew

David Kurtz
Thu, June 13, 2024



Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas went up and away into the wild blue yonder aboard billionaire GOP donor Harlan Crow’s private jet three other times that he hasn’t reported on his financial disclosure filings, according to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-IL).

Durbin’s revelation of the new information about Thomas’ travels came this afternoon, not even 24 hours after Senate Republicans killed a Durbin measure that would have imposed new ethics standards on the Supreme Court.

The demand for greater Supreme Court accountability has ramped up in the months since ProPublica published a Pulitzer Prize-winning series on freebies, gifts, and other financial benefits — including travel — that Crow had bestowed on Thomas but which Thomas had not included in his public financial disclosures.

Just last week, Thomas filed an amended 2019 report that for the first time included the travel that ProPublica had previously reported, a tacit though begrudging acknowledgement by Thomas that he should have included them in the original filing.

The three newly revealed trips announced today by Durbin were not included in Thomas’ amended filing last week.

The three previously unreported trips on Crow’s private jet include:

A May 2017 flight from St. Louis to Kalispell, Montana, with a return flight to Dallas;


A March 2019 round-trip flight between Washington, D.C. and Savannah, Georgia;


A June 2021 round-trip flight between Washington, D.C., and San Jose, California.

Durbin obtained the information about the three flights via a Judiciary Committee subpoena of Crow last November. You can see a portion of the relevant response from Crow’s lawyer here. It’s not clear when the committee obtained Crow’s responses or why Durbin released them today.

In a statement to CBS News, Crow’s office said he had reached an agreement with the committee to provide certain information going back seven years to resolve the matter.

Despite his serious and continued concerns about the legality and necessity of the inquiry, Mr. Crow engaged in good faith negotiations with the Committee from the beginning to resolve the matter. As a condition of this agreement, the Committee agreed to end its probe with respect to Mr. Crow.

Durbin has been a very reluctant warrior on Supreme Court ethics oversight, dismissing as useless the prospect of holding public committee hearings on the court’s ethical lapses and lack of institutional accountability. But Durbin did launch an investigation last fall and has slowly budged in recent days, a result of a combination of outside pressure and a new round of news reports about insurrectionist flags flying outside two of Justice Samuel Alito’s homes.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis is producing new information — like what we’ve revealed today — and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” Durbin said in a press release.

Crow owns a Bombardier Global 5000, ProPublica previously reported. It’s a long-range, twin-engine business jet with a reported range of more than 5,000 nautical miles and cruising speed upwards of 560 m.p.h.

Opinion
Clarence Thomas Fails to Disclose More Gifts From Right-Wing Buddy

Hafiz Rashid
Thu, June 13, 2024 at 3:33 PM MDT·2 min read
17

It turns out Clarence Thomas has failed to disclose even more free trips from conservative billionaire Harlan Crow, a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation uncovered.

At least three times, Crow provided trips on his private jet to the Supreme Court justice to destinations including a March 2019 trip to Thomas’s Georgia hometown, a May 2017 trip to Montana near Glacier National Park with a return flight to Dallas two days later, and a June 2021 roundtrip flight between San Jose, California, and Washington, D.C. The revelations were provided to the committee from Crow’s lawyer.

The purpose of the trips was not mentioned in the report, and Thomas has not reported them in his financial disclosures, even though some legal experts say it violates the law.

It may be the first of more revelations to come, according to Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, who said that a full investigative report from Democrats on the committee would be released later in the summer.

“As a result of our investigation and subpoena authorization, we are providing the American public greater clarity on the extent of ethical lapses by Supreme Court justices,” Durbin said in a statement. The revelations make it “crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct,” he added.

Last year, a ProPublica investigation found that Thomas received free luxury vacations from Crow nearly every year, which the Supreme Court justice failed to report until just last week. The publication also reported that Crow funded the renovation of the home where Thomas’s mother lives, as well as the private school tuition of Mark Martin, the grandson of Thomas’s sister Emma Mae Martin. Thomas and his wife, Ginni Thomas, were Martin’s legal guardians from age 6 to 19 but have since cut ties with Martin, whom Thomas once said he was raising as a “son,” Martin revealed in a recent interview.

Opinion

500 years ago, Machiavelli warned the public about self-interested charismatic figures

Vickie B. Sullivan

THE CONVERSATION
Tue, June 11, 2024 

Machiavelli knew from experience and his extensive reading that there was a long history of nations with republican governments falling victim to ambitious individuals who sought to subvert their nations’ practices and institutions so they could rule alone and unchecked. (Photo: Jeniffer Solis/Nevada Current)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

A United States president sought to remain in office after his term ended, maintains a worshipful following and has declared he will operate as a dictator only on “day one” if reelected. His cunning and manipulation of American politics and its legal system have, so far, blocked efforts to hold him accountable.

That sort of activity has been called “Machiavellian,” after Renaissance writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who lived from 1469 to 1527. He wrote a notorious little treatise called “The Prince,” in which he advises sole rulers – his phrase for authoritarians or dictators – as well as those who aspire to sole rule to use force and fraud to gain and maintain power.

But scholars of Machiavelli like me know there is much more to his analysis. His 16th-century writings discuss not only princely rule but also republican governments, in which citizens select leaders directly or indirectly for specified terms. He instructs republican citizens and leaders, including those of the United States, to recognize how vulnerable the governments they cherish are and to be vigilant against the threats of tyranny. Machiavelli’s advice is as relevant now as it was then.

Machiavelli’s republican experience

Machiavelli knew from experience and his extensive reading that there was a long history of nations with republican governments falling victim to ambitious individuals who sought to subvert their nations’ practices and institutions so they could rule alone and unchecked, with all others serving at their behest and on their authority.

For example, he was from the city-state of Florence in what is now Italy. Florence had had a republican tradition for centuries, but about 30 years before Machiavelli’s birth, banker and politician Cosimo de’ Medici had subverted that system. Cosimo had used his family’s wealth to propel himself to political power by exerting influence over officeholders so that he was the ultimate decision-maker.

Cosimo’s descendants inherited his political power. They briefly lost their grip on power just long enough for Machiavelli to participate for about a decade as an official and diplomat in a restored republic. Machiavelli was in office when the republic collapsed with the return of the Medici family to power.

Removed from office, Machiavelli wrote “The Prince.” He prefaced it with a dedicatory letter to the young member of the Medici whom the family had designated as the new ruler of Florence. Commentators have long disagreed about what Machiavelli sought by so obviously pandering to an autocratic ruler.

The ‘Discourses,’ Machiavelli’s republican writing

That puzzle is all the more perplexing because elsewhere Machiavelli expresses his commitment to republican government. He wrote another book, less well known and much less pithy than “The Prince,” entitled “Discourses on Livy.” In the “Discourses,” Machiavelli uses the work of the ancient Roman historian Livy to examine how the Roman republic was overthrown by a single leader.

At its founding, Rome was a kingship, but when subsequent kings became tyrannical, the Roman people overthrew the monarchy and established a republic, which had a remarkable history and lasted almost 500 years.

The Roman republic collapsed in 44 BCE when Julius Caesar declared himself dictator for life. Machiavelli wrote that Julius Caesar was the first tyrant in Rome, with the result that Rome was never again free.

Julius’ immediate successor Octavius, who assumed the name Caesar Augustus, ruled as the first of a long line of emperors.

Lessons from the demise of the Roman republic

The key lesson of Machiavelli’s examination of Roman history in the “Discourses” is this: A republic is fragile. It requires constant vigilance on the part of both the citizens and their leaders.

That vigilance is difficult to maintain, however, because over generations, citizens and leaders alike become complacent to a key internal threat that haunts this form of government. Specifically, they fail to grasp early enough the anti-republican designs of exceptionally ambitious citizens among them who harbor the desire to rule alone.

Machiavelli provides instructive examples of how Rome failed to protect its republican practices and laws against such a threat. When the republic was young, Rome allowed candidates to nominate themselves for high offices. This practice worked well because only worthy candidates put themselves forward. Later, however, the practice of self-nomination allowed into office those who wanted to promote their own popularity rather than respond to the needs of their country.

Machiavelli said that leaders and citizens devoted to the republic should have closed off this easy route to power to such candidates. But Rome failed to act. Because of its complacency, Caesar was able to build on the popularity that his predecessors had amassed and to transform Rome into a tyranny.

The point of no return

If republican citizens and leaders fail to be vigilant, they will eventually be confronted with a leader who has accumulated an extremely powerful and threatening following. At that point, Machiavelli says, it will be too late to save the republic.

Machiavelli uses the examples of Caesar’s assassination in Rome and Cosimo’s exile from Florence to underscore this lesson. In each case, the supporters of their respective republic, finally perceiving the danger of tyranny, initiated an attack on the people’s idol. In each case, that effort led not to a restoration of republican freedom but rather to its elimination.

In Rome, Augustus used the public’s sympathy and devotion for the martyred Caesar to seal the republic’s demise. In Florence, Cosimo himself was welcomed back from exile to become Florence’s leading man.

The fate of the American republic

For Americans, the question is whether, as a result of public complacency, the republic will be lost. Will the American republic fall to the same perils that Machiavelli identified in ancient Rome and Renaissance Florence?

Perhaps an opportunity exists to breathe new life into the nation’s republican practices and institutions. Perhaps there is still time to reject through elections those who seek office only to enhance their own power.

Or perhaps it is so late that even that approach will not work. Then, Americans would be left to mourn the demise of their republic and to affirm Machiavelli’s counsel that republics fail through complacency. Such an outcome for one of history’s most exemplary republics would stand as a wretched testament to Machiavelli’s political insight.

The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post 500 years ago, Machiavelli warned the public about self-interested charismatic figures appeared first on Nevada Current.

Norway wealth fund to continue 'constructive dialogue' with Tesla after AGM

Reuters
Fri, Jun 14, 2024

OSLO (Reuters) - Norway's $1.7 trillion wealth fund, a top shareholder in Tesla, will continue "a constructive dialogue" with the automaker after its annual general meeting endorsed CEO Elon Musk's $56 billion pay package.

Tesla shareholders approved Musk's record pay on Thursday, a move the fund had voted against. The fund is the automaker's eighth-largest shareholder, according to LSEG data.

"We will continue to seek constructive dialogue with Tesla on this and other topics," said a fund spokesperson.

"We have regular and good dialogue with Tesla - just a week ago we met with the chair," she said, referring to Tesla Chair Robyn Denholm and without giving specifics of the discussion.

The fund held a 0.98% stake in Tesla at the end of 2023 worth $7.7 billion, according to fund data.

(Reporting by Gwladys Fouche, editing by Terje Solsvik)

Bad News for Rivian Investors

Daniel Miller, The Motley Fool
Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 7


Unless you've been hiding from the news, you've likely heard that electric vehicle (EVs) sales have slowed to a crawl in the U.S. market. Among the concerns are the lack of affordable options and lack of sufficient charging infrastructure.

But according to a recent survey by McKinsey & Co., there's even worse news for investors of companies such as Rivian Automotive (NASDAQ: RIVN).
What's going on?

McKinsey, as a part of its biennial survey, asked roughly 200 questions to more than 30,000 consumers in 15 countries that comprise roughly 80% of global sales volume. And what the survey found should be of concern to EV investors.


The survey found that more than 4 out of 10 owners of EVs in the U.S. are likely to buy a combustion engine for their next car purchase. That's a much higher rate than the global 29% that said they're planning to reverse course from their EV purchase.

Those results were a surprise to some: "I didn't expect that," Philipp Kampshoff, leader of the consulting firm's Center for Future Mobility, told Automotive News. "I thought, 'Once an EV buyer, always an EV buyer.'"

The primary concern from respondents was the lack of public charging infrastructure, but other concerns include the high costs of ownership and difficulty in taking long-distance drives. It's true that public charging infrastructure has been slower than anticipated, with only eight stations operational from the creation of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program two years ago. Worse yet, only 23 states have dished out financing from the $5 billion federal program.

In addition to the survey finding that more than 40% of U.S. consumers wanted to switch back from EVs, 21% of global respondents do not ever want to switch to an EV, again citing charging infrastructure concerns.

While those statistics should be concerning to EV investors, the news wasn't all bad. The survey also found that overall consumers are still slightly more likely to consider EVs in the future. More specifically, 38% of non-EV owners say they anticipate a hybrid or full EV to be their next vehicle, which was a smidge higher than the 37% who anticipated it would be their next vehicle from 2022's survey.
Down the road

Sure, the news that many EV owners would prefer to swap back to combustion engines isn't a good sign, but Rivian can only control what it can control. That means the company's focus remains on refreshing its current R1 platform -- which it recently completed -- and preparing for the launch of its upcoming R2 crossover in 2026.

In fact, Rivian has even accelerated its launch schedule by planning to bring initial production to its Illinois facility, rather than waiting for the completion of its factory in Georgia. It's a move that will soak up excess capacity in its original facility and save the company over $2.25 billion. The move is pretty much a no-brainer for a company that needs to launch its more competitively priced vehicle sooner rather than later.

Ultimately, the survey's findings are a bit troubling and the latest sign that the U.S. EV market is going to grow more slowly than hoped.

Chinese Firm Says It’s Probing Case of Missing Russian Copper


Bloomberg News
Thu, Jun 13, 2024

(Bloomberg) -- The Chinese state-owned firm whose shipment of copper from Russia went missing said it’s investigating the matter which involves a monetary value of about 110 million yuan ($15 million).

Wuchan Zhongda Group Co. bought 2,000 tons of refined copper from a Russian company that should have been delivered last month but never arrived, Bloomberg News reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter.

In a statement Friday, the firm said it had conducted a preliminary review after media reports about its copper business. The case concerns an international trading subsidiary, it said.

“The company has a sound internal control system that can effectively manage and control risks related to trade operations,” it said. The value involved was small compared with group revenues of more than 580 billion yuan last year, it said, and the incident “will not have a significant impact on the company’s operations.”

The shipment was purchased from a Russian company called Regional Metallurgical Co. late last year, according to people familiar. But the metal was listed as much cheaper granite and has likely ended up in Turkey, according to the records of the shipping line that handled the consignment, the people said, declining to be identified discussing a sensitive matter.

 Bloomberg Businessweek

WORKERS CAPITAL

US Pensions Vie With Gulf Funds for First Shot at PE Deals





Marion Halftermeyer
Fri, Jun 14, 2024

(Bloomberg) -- It took Scott Chan two years to convince his bosses at the California State Teachers’ Retirement System to free up more cash for lucrative investments alongside the world’s biggest private equity firms.

In the time it took the Calstrs deputy chief investment officer to build his case, faster and nimbler investors — mostly Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds — snapped up more than $38 billion of such deals.

US pension funds, long among the most coveted clients for buyout firms, are rapidly losing ground to deep-pocketed Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds. That’s especially true in deals known as co-investments, where private equity managers tap favored investors to put more money into individual purchases — without the hefty fees. Sovereign wealth funds such as the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and Mubadala Investment Co. have been seizing on such opportunities, deploying billions to help get private equity deals over the line in recent years.

The increased competition for such deals comes just as they’re becoming a more important tool for US pensions to save on management fees and bet on higher returns. That’s changing the dynamics of how US pensions invest, public fund executives say. The largest US pensions are cranking into gear, revamping decision-making processes that made them slow to evaluate new investments and increasing allocations to capture more of these deals.

The board of the largest US pension fund, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, or Calpers, has given its investment team permission to make decisions in 48 hours if they need to. At Calstrs, which manages approximately $338 billion, Chan persuaded the fund’s board this year to tweak an existing co-investment program to be more flexible and put more money to work.

“Pensions are trying to move a lot faster now that the big sovereign wealth funds are in the picture,” said Marcus Frampton, the chief investment officer for the $78 billion Alaska Permanent Fund. The fund made 50 co-investments in the past decade and last year decided to expand its private equity team to do more of such deals.

US public pensions, managed on behalf of teachers, firefighters and other public-sector workers, have for years invested in private equity funds as a means of generating strong returns with less volatility than in the public equity markets. The aim is to close a funding gap that has left many of them tens of billions short of covering expected retirement benefits.

But the asset class is expensive. Some US pensions spend roughly a half-billion dollars on private equity management fees per year.

In recent years, US pensions have ramped up co-investments to gain exposure to attractive companies in a fund’s underlying portfolio, with zero fees to pay. Calpers, which manages about $490 billion, increased its private equity target allocation to 17%, in part to shift more money into such co-investments. The pension made its biggest yet just last year, investing $750 million in an undisclosed US buyout deal.

Access to these deals often goes hand in hand with commitments to a private equity firm’s next fundraise. Meanwhile, private equity firms benefit from having a partner who can shoulder some of the risk at the outset, rather than fronting it all themselves.

The entry of giant sovereign wealth funds from the Middle East has introduced a complication. US pensions have historically taken weeks or even months to make an investment decision, hamstrung by a cumbersome process involving investment committees, consultant reviews and political battles over the stewardship of retirees’ money. By contrast, the likes of ADIA and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund can commit large sums quickly — sometimes in hours.

“We needed to streamline the entire organization’s operations to become nimble so that we could compete in the marketplace at anyone’s speed and scale,” Chan said in an interview with Markets Group in March about the fund’s efforts to improve its co-investment strategy. “If we’re going to do a co-investment, we have to make sure we respond the same day.”

Calstrs saved $185.5 million in fees in 2022, helping to bolster Chan’s case. It now aims to do a co-investment for every fund investment it makes.

Calstrs can provide “quick turnarounds in making co-investment decisions and the ability to take down sizable amounts,” said Mindy Tirapelle, a spokesperson for Calstrs in an emailed response to Bloomberg’s questions about the pension fund’s co-investments.

Calpers declined to comment.

While US pensions aren’t new to co-investing, they’ve typically committed capital at a slower pace and in much smaller amounts than their sovereign wealth peers, which have grown at breakneck speed in recent years.

The 10 largest Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds manage a collective $4.5 trillion in assets, edging closer to the amount the 10 biggest public investors in the US, Australia and Canada manage combined. That means they have large investment targets to fulfill, which in turn is pushing some deals into the multibillion-dollar range.

KKR, EQT, and Brookfield all turned to Middle East sovereign wealth funds last year to help fund big-ticket deals. And Apollo Global Management Inc. Chief Executive Officer Marc Rowan said in February that the best investors are now in places such as Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.

“The first people that get phone calls for some of these deals, especially the bigger deals, are the people that can write a billion-dollar check into one deal,” said Michael Lazorik, the director for private equity principal investments at the roughly $200 million Teacher Retirement System of Texas. “That’s a small number of people.”

That means over the past eight years, Lazorik said, investors — also known as limited partners — who could commit to backstopping a deal with 10-figure sums carved out a new tier for themselves. In that time, Gulf countries have pushed through reforms on business policies and made other efforts to diversify their economies away from oil.

Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 program, launched in 2016, has fueled the kingdom’s aggressive investment strategy in companies abroad. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has said he wants to make investments the source of the government’s revenue, not oil. Instead of stashing a large share of their oil wealth in safe assets like cash, bank deposits and US debt, the sovereign funds are increasingly funneling money into investments in stocks, real estate, infrastructure and private equity.

The largest now underwrite deals alongside private equity firms and are involved much earlier in the investment process than historically was the case. Canadian and Australian public pension funds, as well as Singapore’s sovereign wealth funds GIC and Temasek, have been at the forefront of this type of investing and can keep up with the Middle Eastern players — and in some cases, when a deal gets too big, partner with them.

This has pushed some US pension funds into a so-called second tier. They get phone calls later, after a deal is signed, so that they buy sell-downs, portions of the investments that the larger limited-partners don’t want to keep.

Not every buyout firm has relegated US pensions to second place. Some have responded by creating an alternating system for who they offer deal access to first. More often than not, however, it’s about finding the money fast and avoiding having too many investors to negotiate deal terms with.

One large pension investor said that some money managers prefer a limited partner that has strict governance, as it forces more questions about a transaction and thereby adds a level of comfort to the viability of the deal itself. Many of the Middle East players are organized to write large tickets, but the speed of such deals leaves less time for due diligence compared to the approach of established limited partners, this person said, citing conversations with investment firms and experiences partnering with those players.

Still, US public pensions, which collectively manage several trillion, have started to tout that they, too, can be nimble and move quickly, and that they’re reliable long-term partners. Some of the more sizable ones still compete neck-in-neck with sovereigns on some deals.

“It’s very hard to attain a position in a private equity industry as an LP, and it’s even more important to maintain that position,” Lazorik said. To keep access to co-investments, limited partners often need to make promises of fat commitments in a private equity firm’s next fund raise. As both sovereign wealth funds and investment firm fund sizes grow larger, few US players can keep up.

Calstrs says its new policy makes them more competitive against rivals, letting the fund commit to very large deals that other US investors wouldn’t be able to do because of allocation constraints. Their eventual goal is to co-lead deals, taking as much as 49% ownership in companies and snagging observer board seats.

The largest US pension funds acknowledge privately that they’ve been eyeing the growth of sovereign wealth funds for the past decade, and watching how that has influenced their access to investment managers, according to people familiar with their thinking, who asked to remain anonymous discussing strategy that isn’t public.

Some of them even see trying to compete with the Middle East funds as a futile exercise.

Calpers invests $7.5 billion to $8 billion per year in co-investments, up from just $3 billion in 2022. This year it decided that it’s no longer planning to invest that money with the big-name private equity shops that run the blockbuster deals and garner steep competition with sovereign wealth funds.

Instead, Calpers is shifting its money to smaller managers and deals that can be less competitive. While the pension made that decision primarily to diversify its portfolio, getting meaningful traction with those funds is another benefit. As one person familiar said, Calpers wants to put its money where its tickets mean something.

 Bloomberg Businessweek

DP World Plans $3 Billion African Ports Investment by 2029

Jennifer Zabasajja and Paul Burkhardt
Fri, Jun 14, 2024

(Bloomberg) -- DP World plans to spend $3 billion over the next three to five years on new port and logistics infrastructure in Africa to meet long-term growth that includes surging demand for critical mineral exports.

“The cost of logistics and supply chain across Africa is very high relative to other global markets,” which presents a good opportunity, Mohammed Akoojee, DP World’s chief executive officer and managing director for sub-Saharan Africa, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. The port operator is expanding in Dar es Salaam in Tanzania and has recently assessed harbors in South Africa and Kenya for potential investment.

DP World will focus $2 billion of the upcoming investment on ports, specifically, and $1 billion on the logistics business, he said.

Eight of the world’s 15 fastest-growing economies will be in Africa this year, according to the International Monetary Fund. That’s luring companies including Dubai-based DP World, despite economic pain from accelerating inflation, depreciating currencies and high borrowing costs in the region.

Africa’s potential should be viewed over the long term, not by short-term macroeconomics, according to Akoojee. “It’s a cycle and it certainly hasn’t impacted our appetite for growth on the continent,” he said. “We’re still investing.”

A booming market for critical minerals including copper from Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo are helping drive the need for greater logistics capacity, Akoojee said. “We’ve seen demand increasing over the last few years, largely driven by the whole electrification drive globally and the demand for commodities like cobalt, lithium.”

Port Interest

DP World ’s Africa unit has 27,000 workers and covers ports, terminals, logistics and supply chain businesses. It failed in a bid to partner with South Africa’s Transnet SOC Ltd. to develop the biggest container port on the continent, losing to International Container Terminal Services Inc., which is owned by Filipino billionaire Enrique Razon.

That hasn’t deterred the company from looking to continue its expansion on the continent. As South Africa moves forward on the partial privatization of Transnet, “we remain interested in those opportunities,” Akoojee said. DP World is also looking at the port of Lamu in Kenya, where there’s also a privatization process underway.

You can follow Bloomberg’s reporting on Africa on WhatsApp. Sign up here.

--With assistance from Matthew Hill.

Bloomberg Businessweek

WWIII
New China rules allow detention of foreigners in South China Sea

Jing Xuan TENG
Sat, June 15, 2024 

A China Coast Guard ship maneuvers past a Philippine fishing boat in the disputed South China Sea (Ted ALJIBE)


New Chinese coast guard rules took effect Saturday, under which it can detain foreigners for trespassing in the disputed South China Sea, where neighbours and the G7 have accused Beijing of intimidation and coercion.

Beijing claims almost the entirety of the South China Sea, brushing aside competing claims from several Southeast Asian nations including the Philippines and an international ruling that its stance has no legal basis.

China deploys coast guard and other boats to patrol the waters and has turned several reefs into militarised artificial islands. Chinese and Philippine vessels have had a series of confrontations in disputed areas.


From Saturday, China's coast guard can detain foreigners "suspected of violating management of border entry and exit", according to the new regulations published online.

Detention is allowed up to 60 days in "complicated cases", they say.

"Foreign ships that have illegally entered China's territorial waters and the adjacent waters may be detained."

Manila has accused the Chinese coast guard of "barbaric and inhumane behaviour" against Philippine vessels, and President Ferdinand Marcos last month called the new rules a "very worrisome" escalation.

China Coast Guard vessels have used water cannon against Philippine boats multiple times in the contested waters.

There have also been collisions that injured Filipino troops.

Philippine military chief General Romeo Brawner told reporters on Friday that authorities in Manila were "discussing a number of steps to be undertaken in order for us to protect our fishermen".

Philippine fishermen were told "not to be afraid, but just to go ahead with their normal activities to fish there in our Exclusive Economic Zone", Brawner said.

The Group of Seven bloc on Friday criticised what it called "dangerous" incursions by China in the waterway.

"We oppose China's militarisation, and coercive and intimidation activities in the South China Sea," read a G7 statement at the end of a summit on Friday.

- G7 criticism -

The South China Sea is a vital waterway, where Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei also have overlapping claims in some parts.

Most recently, however, confrontations between China and the Philippines have raised fears of a wider conflict over the sea that could involve the United States and other allies.

Trillions of dollars in ship-borne trade passes through the South China Sea annually, and huge unexploited oil and gas deposits are believed to lie under its seabed, though estimates vary greatly.

The sea is also important as a source of fish for growing populations.

China has defended its new coast guard rules. A foreign ministry spokesman said last month that they were intended to "better uphold order at sea".

And the Chinese defence minister warned this month that there were "limits" to Beijing's restraint in the South China Sea.

China has also been angered in the past by US and other Western warships sailing through the South China Sea.

The US Navy and others undertake such voyages to assert the freedom of navigation in international waters, but Beijing considers them violations of its sovereignty.

Chinese and US forces have had a series of close encounters in the South China Sea.


Philippine military chief urges fishermen to ignore China's new coastguard rules

Reuters
Updated Fri, June 14, 2024 


FILE PHOTO: Members of the media take footage of a Chinese Coast Guard vessel blocking a Philippine Coast Guard vessel on its way to a resupply mission at Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea


MANILA (Reuters) -The Philippine military chief urged Filipino fishermen to keep fishing in the country's exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea, despite China's new coastguard rules allowing it to detain trespassers without trial, which take effect on June 15.

China, which claims almost all of the South China Sea including parts claimed by the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam, has issued new rules that would enforce a 2021 law allowing its coastguard to use lethal force against foreign ships in waters that it claims.

"That's our message to our fishermen, for them not to be afraid but to just go ahead with their normal activities in our exclusive economic zone," Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief Romeo Brawner told reporters on Friday.

"We have the right to exploit the resources in the area so our fishermen have no reason to be afraid," he added.

The new rules, which allows China's coastguard to detain suspected trespassers without trial for 60 days, have sparked international concerns, with the Philippines describing them as "worrisome" and a "provocation".

Taiwan's coastguard said in a statement "it will strengthen fishing protection tasks, resolutely defends the safety of our fishermen's operations and ensure the rights and interests of shipping, and defend national sovereignty”.

It also called on China "not to use this reason to justify unilateral acts that undermine regional peace".

The United States, which has a mutual defence treaty with the Philippines and is bound by law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself, said Chinese domestic law "has no applicability to other states’ flagged vessels in other states’ exclusive economic zones or in the high seas, according to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.

"Enforcement would be highly escalatory and detrimental to regional peace and security," a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department added. "We’ve urged Beijing – and all claimants – to comport their maritime claims with international law as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention."

China has stepped up military activities near democratically-governed Taiwan, which it views as its own territory. It is also involved in an increasingly bitter stand-off with the Philippines in the disputed South China Sea.

The Chinese foreign ministry has said previously the new rules were meant to protect the maritime order, and that there was no need to worry if there was no illegal behaviour by the individuals and bodies involved.

(Reporting by Karen Lema; Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard and David Brunnstrom; Editing by Alex Richardson and Chizu Nomiyama)

BEFORE ISLAMOPHOBIA

 

EDWARD SAID; ORIENTALISM PDF

Monoskop.orgmonoskop.org/images/4/4e/Said_Edward_Orientalism_1979.pdf

Orientalism by Edward Said PDF - Monoskop

Originally published by Pantheon Books, A Division of. Random House, Inc., in November 1978. Library of Congress Cola/oging in Publico/ion Da/a. Said, Edward W.