Sunday, January 23, 2022

In Kashmir, India batters press freedom — and journalists
#KASHMIR IS #INDIA'S #GAZA
By AIJAZ HUSSAIN and SHEIKH SAALIQ

1 of 9
Kashmir Press Club building is pictured through a closed gate after it was sealed by authorities in Srinagar, Indian controlled Kashmir, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2022. Last week, a few journalists supportive of the Indian government, with assistance from armed police, took control of the region’s only independent press club. Authorities shut it down a day later, drawing sharp criticism from journalist bodies. Reporters Without Borders called it an “undeclared coup” and said the region is “steadily being transformed into a black hole for news and information.” The government defended its move by citing “potential law and order situation” and “the safety of bona fide journalists.” (AP Photo/Dar Yasin)


SRINAGAR, India (AP) — For five years, Sajad Gul wrote about conflict wracking his homeland, a disputed Himalayan territory where a violent armed rebellion and India’s brutal counterinsurgency have raged for over three decades.

That changed on a snowy Wednesday night in January with a knock at his house. Gul was surrounded by Indian soldiers wielding automatic rifles who bundled him into a vehicle and sped away, plowing through the snow-laden track in Hajin, a quiet village about 20 miles from Srinagar, the region’s main city, said his mother, Gulshana, who only uses one name.

Journalists have long contended with various threats in Indian-controlled Kashmir and found themselves caught between warring sides. But their situation has gotten dramatically worse since India revoked the region’s semi-autonomy in 2019, throwing Kashmir under a severe security and communication lockdown and the media in a black hole. A year later, the government’s new media policy sought to control the press more effectively to censure independent reporting.

Dozens have been arrested, interrogated and investigated under harsh anti-terror laws. Fearing reprisals, local press has largely wilted under pressure.

“Indian authorities appear determined to prevent journalists from doing their jobs,” said Steven Butler, Asia program coordinator of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists.

Gul’s arrest, which the CPJ condemned, underscored the fast-eroding press freedoms and criminalization of journalists in Kashmir.

Police told Gul’s family that he was arrested for provoking people to “resort to violence and disturb public peace.” A police statement later described him as “habitual of spreading disinformation” and “false narratives” on social media.

He was detained days after his single tweet linked a video clip of a protest against Indian rule, following a Kashmiri rebel’s killing. He spent 11 days locked up before a local court granted him bail.

Instead of freeing Gul, authorities charged him in a new case under the Public Safety Act, which allows officials to imprison anyone for up to two years without trial.


“My son is not a criminal,” said Gulshana. “He only used to write.”

Media has always been tightly controlled in India’s part of Muslim-majority Kashmir. Arm twisting and fear have been extensively used to intimidate the press since 1989, when rebels began fighting Indian soldiers in a bid to establish an independent Kashmir or union with Pakistan. Pakistan controls Kashmir’s other part and the two counties fiercely claim the territory in full.

The fighting has left tens of thousands of people dead. Yet, Kashmir’s diverse media flourished despite relentless pressure from Indian authorities and rebel groups.

That changed in 2019, when authorities began filing criminal cases against some journalists. Several of them have been forced to reveal their sources, while others have been physically assaulted.

“Authorities have created a systematic fear and launched a direct assault on free media. There is complete intolerance of even a single critical word,” said Anuradha Bhasin, an editor at Kashmir Times, a prominent English daily that was established in 1954.

Bhasin was among the few who filed a petition with India’s Supreme Court, resulting in partial restoration of communication services after the 2019 blackout, which the government had said was necessary to stall anti-India protests.

But she soon found herself in the crosshairs of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government.

Bhasin’s legacy newspaper office in Srinagar, operating from a rented government building, was sealed by authorities without any notice. Its staff was not allowed to take out any equipment.

“They are killing local media except those who are willing to become government stenographers,” said Bhasin.

Under Modi, press freedoms in India have steadily shrunk since he was first elected in 2014. Last year, India was ranked 142nd in the global press freedom index by media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, below Afghanistan and Zimbabwe.

Nowhere has this slide been more glaring than in Kashmir.

Authorities have pressed newspapers by chastising editors and starving them of advertisement funds, their main source of income, to chill aggressive reporting.

For the most part, newspapers appear to have cooperated and self-censored stories, afraid to be branded anti-national by a government that equates criticism with secessionism.

“We have been merely trying to keep afloat and hardly have been able to do proper journalism for various reasons, one being that we are mainly dependent on government ads,” said Sajjad Haider, the top editor of Kashmir Observer.

There have been press crackdowns in the region before, especially during periods of mass public uprisings. But the ongoing crackdown is notably worse.

Last week, a few journalists supportive of the Indian government, with assistance from armed police, took control of the Kashmir Valley’s only independent press club. Authorities shut it down a day later, drawing sharp criticism from journalist bodies.

The Editors Guild of India accused the government of being “brazenly complicit” and dubbed it an “armed takeover.” Reporters Without Borders called it an “undeclared coup” and said the region is “steadily being transformed into a black hole for news and information.”

The press club is the region’s latest civil society group to face the government’s widening crackdown. In the last two years, authorities have stopped the Kashmir High Court Bar Association and the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce from holding internal elections.

The government defended its move by citing “potential law and order situation” and “the safety of bona fide journalists.” It said the club failed to register under a new law and hold elections for a new managing body.

The club said new registration was granted by authorities after “six months of rigorous police verification” in late December, but kept in “abeyance” a day later for unknown reasons.

The government’s move ran in stark contrast with its policy in the region’s Hindu-dominated Jammu city where another press club continues to function without having held an election for nearly half a decade.

Majid Maqbool, a local reporter, said the club extended institutional support to journalists working under difficult conditions. “It was like a second home for us,” he said.

Local Kashmiri reporters were often the only eyes on the ground for global audiences, particularly after New Delhi barred foreign journalists from the region without official approval a few years ago. Most of the coverage has focused on the Kashmir conflict and government crackdowns. Authorities are now seeking to control any narrative seen opposed to the broad consensus in India that the region is an integral part of the country.

In this battle of narratives, journalists have been berated by authorities for not using the term “terrorists” for separatist rebels. Government communiques mostly appear on front pages and statements from pro-India Kashmiri groups critical of Modi’s policies are barely published.

Newspaper editorials reflective of the conflict are largely absent. Rare news reports about rights abuses are often dismissed as politically motivated fabrications, emboldening the region’s heavy-handed military and police to muzzle the press.

Some reporters have been subjected to grueling hours of police interrogation, a tactic condemned by the United Nations last year.

Aakash Hassan, an independent Kashmiri journalist who mainly writes for the international press, said he has been summoned at least seven times by Indian authorities in the last two years.

Hassan said sometimes officers would question his motives to report and “lecture me about how to do journalism the right way.”

“It is a way to dissuade us from reporting,” he said, adding that police also questioned his parents several times and probed their finances.

“Sometimes I wonder if it is worth it to be a journalist in Kashmir,” said Hassan. “But I know, silence doesn’t help.”
Turkey: Journalist jailed on suspicion of insulting Erdogan

Turkish police have detained prominent journalist Sedef Kabas for allegedly insulting President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on television and Twitter. She could face years in jail.

Kabas has been detained before for a tweet suggesting a cover-up in a government corruption scandal

Turkish journalist Sedef Kabas risks up to four years in jail for allegedly insulting President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Police detained her in the early hours of Saturday morning, and a court ordered her to remain in jail pending a trial.

Kabas' lawyer Ugur Poyraz said they would appeal the "unlawful" decision on Monday.

"We hope Turkey can return to rule of law soon," Poyra said.

Kabas did not name Erdogan directly. However, the authorities object to a proverb that she used during a show on Tele1 television and later tweeted.

"When the ox comes to the palace, he does not become a king," Kabas said. "But the palace becomes a barn."

Ministers outraged by remarks

Erdogan spokesperson Fahrettin Altun called Kabas "immoral" and "irresponsible."

"The honor of the presidency's office is the honor of our country. ... I condemn the vulgar insults made against our president and his office," he wrote.

Turkey's justice minister, Abdulhamit Gul, wrote on Twitter that Kabas will "get what she deserves" for her "unlawful" remarks.

The country's broadcast regulator, RTUK, meanwhile, started an investigation into Tele1 for "unacceptable statements targeting our president."

Tele1's chief editor, Merdan Yanardag, sharply criticized the arrest.

"Her detention overnight at 2 a.m. because of a proverb is unacceptable," he wrote on Twitter. "This stance is an attempt to intimidate journalists, the media and society."


Turkey has investigated more than 160,000 cases of insulting the president since Erdogan took the office in 2014

Thousand convicted for insulting Erdogan

Insulting the president carries a jail sentence of between one and four years.

Since Erdogan became president in 2014, 35,507 cases of insulting the president were filed and there were 12,881 convictions.

Kabas had previously been charged after she posted criticism of a government-appointed judge who dropped a corruption probe against Erdogan and other politicians. She was later released.

The Turkish journalists union called the arrest a "serious attack on freedom of expression."

Reporters Without Borders places Turkey at 153 out of 180 countries in their press freedom index.

lo/dj (AFP, dpa, Reuters)




Turkish opposition deputy moves to

decriminalise insulting president

Jan 23 2022 

Özgür Özel, deputy parliamentary group chairman for the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), is preparing to submit a proposal to remove the crime of ‘insulting the president’ from Turkish law, Anka News Agency reported on Sunday.

During the presidency of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, 160,169 people have been investigated for insulting the president and 12,881 have been convicted of the crime. “This shows a clear abuse of the Turkish Penal Code Article 299,” Özel said.

Only 233 people were convicted of the same crime during the term of Erdoğan’s predecessor Abdullah Gül, and the number was even lower for previous presidents, Özel said. Ahmet Necdet Sezer’s and Süleyman Demirel’s presidencies saw 82 and 71 convictions respectively.

“Official data shows that in Erdoğan’s term, this article has been turned into an apparatus for revenge,” the deputy said.

The article was drafted with different parameters in mind, he added. Before the 2017 referendum to amend the constitution, Turkey’s political system only bestowed limited powers to the president and disallowed any affiliation with political parties.

Currently, Erdoğan is both president of the country and head of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).

Özel continued:

“After the constitutional amendment that attacked the regime, the president has donned an additional armour of protection via Article 299, which was created for impartial presidents before him. (Erdoğan) goes to court for the smallest criticisms and imposes severe restrictions on our citizens’ freedom of expression.”

Erdoğan also uses the article to target his political rivals, the deputy added.

There are at least 141 instances of Erdoğan pressing charges against CHP deputies, according to Özel. “There is no satisfactory explanation as to why the chairman of a political party needs this armour that other chairpersons do not have.”

“It is clear that the president who is also the chairman of a political party should internalise freedom of thought and expression, vital pillars of democracy in the 21st century, and to learn to tolerate diverse voices and opinions,” Özel said.





COVID-19: African scientists say 'mild omicron' could end pandemic

The rapid spread of omicron had concerned virologists. Now, African scientists are optimistic that the variant could mark the end of the pandemic and the beginning of an endemic.



Many African countries seem to have 'accepted' that COVID is here to stay

As of Friday, January 21, the coronavirus pandemic had claimed the lives of more than 5.5 million people worldwide. The highly contagious omicron and delta variants are responsible for the exponential infection numbers recorded daily.

Omicron, first detected and documented in South Africa, is becoming the dominant variant in many parts of the world, including across Africa. A South African study has shown that, despite the high number of infections, deaths haven't increased statistically significantly when compared with previous variants.

The fourth wave of infections has been slowing in South Africa, and life is gradually returning to normal for the first time since the pandemic's start in 2020.

"I do wish that I won't even hear the name COVID. That's what we are wishing for," one resident of Cape Town told DW.

Another resident told DW: "It's very nice to see everyone going out and about, relaxing, going outside. We've been locked down in our houses for how long now?! I hope that omicron is actually the final stage of this virus."

South African virologist Wolfgang Preiser told DW that the behavior of the omicron variant gives hope that the pandemic could become endemic. But he added that it could only be achieved when most of the population has a primary immunity from a previous infection or vaccination.

"I still hope we can get around regular booster shots," Preiser said.

"If another variant doesn't come as a nasty surprise, then we can keep our immunity up by natural means via regular reinfections with the coronavirus," Preiser added. 



Omicron is considered the most contagious of all known coronavirus variants
'Good news' for Africa?

The comparatively mild infections caused by the omicron variant have proved to be good news for African countries where infections have been rising — and have also given scientists hope of a possible end to the pandemic.

"This is very good news," the Ghanaian epidemiologist Fred Binka told DW. "Viruses have two major characteristics: They have virulence, and they also have the transmission capabilities."

"They either mutate and gain strength in the transmissibility or their virulence," Binka said. "So, when they become very transmissible, you have the lower virulence."

Binka sounded upbeat, adding: "It is obvious that the pandemic is coming to an end, the virus has now established itself, and it will be endemic and be here forever." He predicted that COVID-19 will become a typical disease "that we can live with and treat."



Africa is the least-vaccinated continent worldwide
WHO urges caution

According to the World Health Organization, the relatively mild infections do not mean that the world is out of the danger zone yet.

This week, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters that the pandemic is nowhere near over. "Omicron may be less severe, on average, but the narrative that it is a mild disease is misleading," Tedros said.

"Make no mistake: Omicron is causing hospitalizations and deaths, and even the less-severe cases are inundating health facilities," he added.

Globally, deaths continue to rise. In Africa, there are still concerns about the impact of the pandemic, with vaccinations rates being the lowest in the world. Only 7% of Africa's population has received a COVID jab.

"If you get to a situation where nearly everyone has had it or has been vaccinated, you can relax," Preiser said.

Preiser said African countries, including South Africa, would need to keep pushing for populations to get vaccinated.

Binka also said remaining vigilant was key. "Caution is the order of the day," Binka said, adding that not all details about Omicron "has been documented, so let's wait another six months and see what will happen."

African children at higher risk


The cautious optimism from the African scientists comes after another study published in JAMA Pediatrics and led by a University of Pittsburgh infectious diseases epidemiologist found that children hospitalized with COVID-19 in sub-Saharan Africa are dying at a faster rate than in the US and Europe.

According to the study, children of all ages with comorbidities — including high blood pressure, chronic lung diseases, hematological disorders and cancer — were more likely to die.


A new study found that vulnerable African children are more likely to die from COVID-19

"Although our study looked at data from earlier in the pandemic, the situation hasn't changed much for the children of Africa," said lead author Jean B. Nachega, an associate professor of infectious diseases and microbiology and epidemiology at Pitt's Graduate School of Public Health.

"If anything, it is expected to be worsening with the global emergence of the highly contagious omicron variant," Nachega said.

The professor called on officials to urgently increase COVID-19 vaccinations and therapeutic interventions for eligible at-risk children and adolescents in Africa.

On Wednesday, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa opened a COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing facility. The NantSA plant located in Brackenfell, Western Cape, will be manufacturing second-generation vaccines.

"Africa should no longer be last in line to access vaccines against pandemics," Ramaphosa said at the facility's opening.

Theranos' Third Man

Like film noir villain Harry Lime, Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes' crimes aren't just financial: They've harmed medical patients.

(Photo from IMDb.)

When Theranos, the blood-testing startup she founded, was thought to be on the verge of revolutionizing the medical industry, there was nobody Elizabeth Holmes was compared to more often than Apple founder Steve Jobs. Holmes encouraged the comparison by describing Theranos’s testing system as the ”iPod of health care.” She even dressed like Jobs, wearing the kind of black turtleneck he had made his personal trademark.

With her conviction earlier this month of fraud in a trial that exposed both her and Theranos, Holmes is now the subject of a new set of comparisons. The men she is being compared with are very different from Steve Jobs. 

Two of them went to prison: In 2006 Andrew Fastow, the former chief financial officer of Enron was sentenced to serve six years and required to forfeit $23.8 million for his role in the fraud scheme of Enron, the Houston-based energy company. In 2009 Bernie Madoff was convicted of cheating investors out of an estimated $65 million in a giant Ponzi scheme and sentenced to 150 years.

This month in the New York Times, Holmes was even compared to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Jay Gatsby, who for a time tried to pass himself off as a man of inherited wealth despite earning his money as a bootlegger. David Streitfeld, the author of the front-page Times article on Holmes’ trial, observed, “Gatsby was practically Ms. Holmes’s brother.”

All of these comparisons capture part of Holmes’s story, but they also obscure the smallness that characterizes her. The grift she is associated with today is best understood when she is linked to someone with a less-than-commanding presence—the American con man Harry Lime, the central figure in Carol Reed’s classic 1949 film, The Third ManLime makes his living selling adulterated penicillin in post-World War II Vienna and hides in the city’s sewers. He takes advantage of desperate times and is brought down when, after seeing some of the victims of his penicillin fraud in the hospital, a close friend leads the police to him. 

Linking Lime (played in The Third Man by Orson Welles) and Holmes is their willingness to take risks with other people’s health. Penicillin had just come into widespread use in the 1940s, and Lime, like Holmes, was aware that any lifesaving medical breakthrough offered a great opportunity for exploitation. The key to Lime’s character comes in a scene in which he sits in a ferris wheel and looks down on the people below him and sees only “dots.”

Theranos grew into a $10 billion company based on its promise of revolutionizing blood testing by being able to run many different tests using only a few drops of blood and a small, portable machine.

In the most thorough book to date on Holmes and Theranos, Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup, investigative reporter John Carreyrou provides a detailed account of individual patients who were given inaccurate blood-test results from Theranos. Carreyrou goes on to point out that the number of blood tests that Theranos “voided or corrected” in California and Arizona eventually reached 1 million.

This patient side of the Elizabeth Holmes scandal has not gotten the attention it deserves in the media in the wake of her trial. Trial reportage has focused on the fact that the crimes for which she was convicted—three for fraud, one for conspiracy to commit fraud—were all against Theranos investors. Writers such as Christopher Weaver and Heather Somerville in the Wall Street Journal and Bethany McLean on the opinion page of the New York Times have been the rare exceptions, showing interest in the lives of the patients who were affected by Theranos tests.

The bulk of reporting and commentary on the Holmes trial has repeated the well-worn point that Holmes and Theranos epitomize the reckless culture of Silicon Valley with its emphasis on get-rich-quick schemes. Lost has been the opportunity to cut Holmes and her enablers down to size and see them as every bit as sordid as Harry Lime.

What will happen next in Holmes’ life is far from settled. Each of the charges on which she has been found guilty carries with it the possibility of a 20-year maximum sentence. In addition her conviction points to failures in due diligence by a host of figures who should know better—from Theranos investors such as publishing mogul Rupert Murdoch and former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, to members of Theranos’s board of directors, which included former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Secretary of Defense William Perry.

Holmes, who is 37 and the mother of a baby born during her trial, seems likely to pay dearly for her misdeeds. Between now and September 26, when she is scheduled to be sentenced, she and her attorneys will have their work cut out for them if she is to have any kind of a life left for herself. The great pity is that those who supported her and basked in her presence during her heyday appear set to go on as before—only with less money in their pockets.

Nicolaus Mills is professor of literature and American studies at Sarah Lawrence College. He is author of Winning the Peace: The Marshall Plan and America’s Coming of Age as a Superpower.



The Cult of Ideology vs. The Cult of Personality

The most important clashes aren’t between right and left but within right and left

10
(Photo by Octavio Jones/Getty Images.)

Do you ever read an idea and feel enlightened and envious at the same time? You simultaneously think, “Aha! That’s insightful,” and “Dang! I’ve been sniffing around this concept and haven’t quite nailed it like he did.” In this instance, it’s a concept that helps explain both the deep dysfunction of our political system and the deep discomfort that so many people of good will—on both sides of our political spectrum—feel with our political culture. 

It’s summed up in this tweet by a sharp lawyer I follow who tweets under the name “A.G. Hamilton.” 

If you click on the tweet you can read his entire thread, but his point rests on two key and obvious trends. First, the Democratic Party has moved quite decisively to the left, and the median Democrat has moved far more to the left than the median Republican has moved to the right. This chart, recently made famous in a column by progressive writer Kevin Drum, illustrates the point nicely:

And as millions upon millions of Americans have moved collectively to the left—especially when those Americans are disproportionately clustered in like-minded urban enclaves—they have become increasingly intolerant of dissent. Although there are signs that at least some of the cancel culture fever is breaking, I like what Drum says to those who refute its existence:

And for God’s sake, please don't insult my intelligence by pretending that wokeness and cancel culture are all just figments of the conservative imagination. Sure, they overreact to this stuff, but it really exists, it really is a liberal invention, and it really does make even moderate conservatives feel like their entire lives are being held up to a spotlight and found wanting.

Yup. Exactly. We can disagree about the extent of American cancel culture—or whether any given event qualifies—but to deny its existence is to engage in willful partisan blindness.

Lots of folks on the right forwarded around and commented on Drum’s post last summer (it was provocatively titled, “If you hate the culture wars, blame liberals). Thoughtful conservatives asked their progressive friends to look at the data and examine whether their movement was becoming unacceptably extreme, fueled by the kind of radicalizing frenzy that we so often see from ideologically homogeneous communities.

In fact, as I wrote in my most recent book, Divided We Fall, this phenomenon was explained and predicted by Cass Sunstein almost a generation ago. In a 1999 paper called “The Law of Group Polarization,” he explains that when like-minded people gather, they tend to grow more extreme. Or, here’s how he put it in more academic language:

In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. For example, people who are opposed to the minimum wage are likely, after talking to each other, to be still more opposed; people who tend to support gun control are likely, after discussion, to support gun control with considerable enthusiasm; people who believe that global warming is a serious problem are likely, after discussion, to insist on severe measures to prevent global warming.

“This general phenomenon—group polarization—has many implications for economic, political, and legal institutions,” He wrote. “It helps to explain extremism, ‘radicalization,’ cultural shifts, and the behavior of political parties and religious organizations; it is closely connected to current concerns about the consequences of the Internet.” (Emphasis added.) 

Remember, this was written in 1999, before The Facebook was a gleam in Mark Zuckerberg’s eye.

But Hamilton’s tweet captures something that Drum’s chart doesn’t—the nature of radicalization on the right. Any fair reading of the right’s ideology would include the phrase “deeply confused.” After all, where does disproportionate resistance to vaccines come from? That wasn’t even on the right-wing radar before 2020, and to the extent that conservatives cared, they mainly saw it as a product of the crunchy, green weird left, not the populist right. 

Right-wing ideology is so up for grabs that it’s hard to know “the right’s” position on everything from the size and role of government, the First Amendment (for example, it’s somewhat fashionable now for Republican governors to sign obviously unconstitutional bills regulating corporate speech), and foreign policy. After all, the right’s top cable host is now openly echoing the Kremlin’s line in its looming conflict with Ukraine. 

The right’s cult is different. Hamilton calls it a cult of personality. That can imply “Trump,” but I think it’s deeper (and Hamilton notes that it’s deeper). It’s a cult of a certain type of personality, one that is relentlessly, personally, and often punitively aggressive. The aggression is mandatory. The ideology is malleable.

And don’t think for a moment that this began with Trump. He both channeled and amplified a pre-existing tsunami of outrage and animosity. Years back, well before I entered the world of journalism full-time, I spent considerable time, energy, and effort trying to help Mitt Romney win the presidency. My wife and I formed a group called “Evangelicals for Mitt” designed to help persuade my fellow Evangelicals that the Mormon former governor of Massachusetts was the best man for the world’s most difficult job.

In our conversations we emphasized his integrity, his decency, and his competence. Talk about missing your audience—turns out that each of those virtues turned out to be less important than pugilism or aggression. 

But even then, the message from much of the grassroots was clear. Hit harder. No, hit even harder. Lack of aggression was perceived as lack of effort, a lack of a will to win. Mitt’s primary competitors weren’t necessarily more conservative than him, but they were more aggressive. 

What we now call “Trumpism” is really Trump’s imprint on an impulse that pre-existed Trump and is likely to persist well past his presidency. If you pay little attention to talk radio, you’re likely missing the extent of devotion to the cult of aggression. 

The same thing goes for the top-rated television shows and websites. The same personality characteristics persist. It’s pugilists almost all the way down. Reasoned voices are hard to find. And when I say “pugilists,” there is almost no limit to the rhetoric. In a recent New Yorker profile of Dan Bongino—one of social media’s most prominent right-wing voices—Evan Osnos quotes him as describing “insane leftists” as people who “wish death on me and everyone else from COVID, because they’re legitimately crazy satanic demon people.”

That’s absurd rhetoric. Just absurd. But words like “evil,” “satanic,” and “demonic” are routinely thrown around to describe political opponents. Write something that the Trump right disagrees with (especially on matters of race), and you’re “loathsome,” “despicable,” and “odious.” I oughta know, those words were written about me

Hamilton optimistically argues that the right will be less difficult to reform because the cult of personality is driven by the search for a “winner.” Change the identity of the winner, and you change the nature of the cult. I hope he’s right. While I don’t like the cult concept in general, I could at least sip the Kool-Aid in a cult of Sasse, but I’m dumping out the entire glass of Trump. 

Unfortunately, however, there is now evidence that parts of the right might “move on” from Trump by becoming more aggressive than Trump. Alex Jones (don’t laugh, he has a huge following) has threatened to turn on Trump for pushing the COVID vaccine. Candace Owens (again, another person with a huge following) has also sharply disagreed with Trump on vaccines, suggesting Trump is too old to follow the latest “independent research.”

Most notably, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, arguably the leading contender for post-Trump Republican leadership has triggered a feud with Trump by being evasive about his vaccine status and criticizing the president’s early handling of the pandemic as too draconian. And don’t forget he recently signed a bill in Brandon, Florida—an obvious nod to the right-wing “Let’s go Brandon” slur. 

The existence of these two cults does much to explain why so many Americans feel so deeply alienated and conflicted about American politics. They explain why so many of us should feel alienated and conflicted. You can take the most thoughtful and committed Christian socialist or progressive (and I know more than a few), and even those folks who might welcome greater awareness of systemic injustice and profound income inequality are deeply chagrined at the package-deal ethics that come with increasing extremism.

“Do I really have to affirm that a man can get pregnant, or that there are no true biological distinctions between men and women?”

“Do I have to support taxpayer funding of abortions?” 

“Do I have to forsake race consciousness (awareness of the profound and systemic injustice) for a kind of intolerant race essentialism that seems to not just speak profoundly untrue things but also violates the civil rights of American citizens?”

At the same time, you can take the most thoughtful and committed Christian pro-life and religious liberty activist, a person who has spent their entire life seeking uphold and advance values of decency, integrity, and fidelity and face the following questions:

“Do I really have to move on from, minimize, or rationalize a violent effort to overturn a presidential election?”

“Should I keep my thoughts about a lifesaving vaccine to myself to avoid fracturing my political coalition even when people I know and love are dying tragic and needless deaths?”

“Is even the idea that this nation bears responsibility for addressing the continued consequences of centuries of racist oppression too ‘woke’ to speak?”

“Is loving my enemies now naïve? Does exhibiting the fruits of the spirit—even in politics—mark me as weak?”

When mutual animosity escalates—and when that gap between red and blue in the chart above widens—the temptation to overlook these internal fault lines can become overpowering. Indeed, the primary reason why 2019’s “against David-Frenchism” essay (which argued that my classical liberal philosophy and personal manner were uniquely problematic to the new right) went viral wasn’t because of its attack on the classical liberalism of the American founding. That’s still a fringe idea that would shock Republican Americans who revere the founders and the founding documents. 

No, it was the attack on decency and civility as “secondary values.” Here was a Christian rationalizing the sidelining of clear and unequivocal biblical commands—commands written when political enemies were far more deadly and the church far more vulnerable than it is today. 

The most important cultural clashes in America in the present moment aren’t between right and left but rather within right and left. They’re aimed at arresting the present trends that render public life increasingly miserable and our union increasingly fragile. 

And here’s where the hope lies. There is evidence of increasing awareness on the left that the movement has simply gone too far. From London Breed’s crackdown on crime in San Francisco to Eric Adams’s election in New York City, there is increasing evidence that regular voters are starting to reject the dangerous extremes. “Defund the Police” is a dead slogan, relegated back to isolated corners of Twitter and small parts of the academy. 

And what of the right? I keep going back to the spiritually and culturally consequential 2021 Southern Baptist Convention. At a crucial moment when a “conservative” movement that all too often mirrored aggression and pugilism of the political right tried to seize control of the SBC, other conservatives (this was no moderate v. conservative contest) answered that they, in the words of former SBC president J.D. Greear, are “great commission Baptists. We have political leanings. But we are not the party of the elephant or the donkey. We are the people of the lamb.”

They elected as president Ed Litton, a man known as a pastor, not a culture warrior, and who has engaged in faithful and consistent efforts at racial reconciliation. 

We can and should find purpose and meaning in our discontent, in our sense that we don’t truly “fit” with either of America’s most aggressive political and cultural factions. It’s that discontent, given voice and put into practice, that can rescue us from the cults of ideology and personality, the movements that are ripping our families, our communities, and our nation apart. 

One more thing …

I originally envisioned the Good Faith podcast as an extension of the discussions in this newsletter, but the podcast comes out before I write, so that’s not always going to work. This week is no exception. Curtis and I take a hard look at why pastors are leaving churches, what that says about us, what that says about the church, and what we can do about it.

Please listen to the whole thing. Curtis is a former pastor, and his story about why he left the pulpit echoes powerfully with pastors who write to me almost every day. 

One last thing …

I’ve shared this song before, but I think it’s particularly salient this week, mainly because of the first line—“I’m done trusting in what’s sinking. These boats weren’t built for me.” These political movements that command our loyalty and commitment? Those boats weren’t built for us.

Corporate Media Spin in Defence of Transnational Mining Operations in Ecuador

BY BEN DEBNEY
JANUARY 21, 2022

If Australian mining baroness Gina Rinehardt is to believed, the Ecuadorian arm of her transnational mining operations, Hanrine, has been under siege by ‘swarms’ of ‘bandits’ who are backed by ‘organised crime,’ protected by ‘scoundrel layers’ and ‘unscrupulous politicians,’ and are carrying out ‘environmentally destructive’ and illegal mining operations around the concessions granted to Hanrine by the Ecuadorian government in 2017. The Ecuadorian government, Hanrine alleged at the beginning of the year, has been forced to send in the military to restore order.

These claims from Hanrine Holdings come in the face its own operations in the small town of La Merced de Buenos Aires, against which the residents of the area have been organised in ardent opposition for the best part of five years. More than 300 residents spent over a month blockading access roads for Hanrine machinery, trucks and employees when they first arrived, and have now set up a permanent camp around the new copper mine in protest at its destructive effects on their local community and ecology.

Hanrine’s allegations are of particular interest and concern insofar as the actual chronology of events associated with the discovery of copper deposits around Buenos Aires sits conspicuously at adds with the claims published in the mainstream Australian corporate media at the beginning of the year—claims that have neither been upheld with any evidence, nor withdrawn for lack of any. The best lies, as political propagandists have long understood, are those spun from partial truths, not those cut from whole cloth. In this case, the claims from Hanrine are brazen distortions of half-truths.

The half-truth being weaponised by Australian mining operations in Ecuador in this instance is that the discovery of gold deposits in the area in 2017, four years ago, did indeed attract a rush of unlicensed miners from as far away as Peru and Venezuela. According to the Murdoch press article carrying the Hanrine claims, Buenos Aires was ‘plagued by violence, prostitution and drug addiction’ for two years until the Ecuadorian state put the area under a 60-day state of emergency. At the time, neoliberal Ecuadorian president Lenín Moreno tweeted, ‘Illegal mining and its network of associated crimes must be stopped!’

While it is clear then that the first discovery of precious minerals in the area did produce a gold rush, with all of the social ills typically associated with them, no explanation from Hanrine or the Murdoch Press has been forthcoming as to how this constituted either ‘banditry’ or ‘organised crime’—much less to say such activity protected by nebulous ‘scoundrel layers’ or ‘unscrupulous politicians.’ The existence of the oldest profession in the area was hardly proof; for all anyone knows all involved were self-employed. The existence of prostitution in the area certainly does not bear association with the narcotrafficking and official corruption more typically associated with South America. Nor is there any explanation to how a gold rush that failed to bear such descriptions four years ago has any bearing on anti-mining organising around Buenos Aires in 2021.

No less problematically, claims that the 2017 gold rush was ‘environmentally destructive’ because it was illegal are belied by the fact, pointed to as one of the main bones of contention by residents of Buenos Aires, that legal mining operations are just as environmentally destructive—if not more so. The attempt by Hanrine and their enablers in the Murdoch Press to establish a pretence to the contrary is, in this case, telling, in meeting attempts by Buenos Aires residents to hold them accountable with PR spin associating ecological sustainability with legalism. Insofar as Ecuadorian President Moreno colludes in perpetrating this false assumption, this also serves to call into question his impartiality. No enabling ‘scoundrel layers’ or ‘unscrupulous politicians’ to be seen here.

Further clues as to what is actually going on, and what purposes the claims from Hanrine actually serve, are suggested by testimony from Earth defender Natalia Bonilla. As Bonilla points out, when

her organization, Acción Ecológica, took an interest in what was happening in Buenos Aires, and started trying to work with residents to resist the mining operation, she realised that the people clustered around the mine were residents of the area, not participants in a gold rush. ‘It is a community of farmers, ranchers and agricultural people,’ she stated, arguing further that the spin from the mining company had ‘marked them as illegal miners and made them invisible’ (Cardona 2021).

The holes in the story as published by the Murdoch Press here in Australia, along with the direct testimony from Earth defenders on the ground in Ecuador, tends towards the conclusion that the claims from Hanrine, parroted and platformed by the Murdoch Press, have been constructed for the express purpose of invisibilising protest and demonising Earth Defenders. This is consistent with two decades of counterterrorist moral panic operating on the logic of ‘doubting the judgment of the powerful gives aid to the terrorists’—the association of Earth defence with terrorism being as predictable today as it was in 2001.

Indeed, as Rebekah Hayden, a member of the Rainforest Action Group points out,

Villagers say Hanrine is acting illegally in trying to forcibly enter their territories. They do not want any kind of mining in their territories, particularly a foreign-owned mine, and they view the incursion as a violation of their rights. Despite reports in Australian and Ecuadorian press that resistance in the area was by illegal miners, locals insist this is not the case, saying that Hanrine is conducting a smear campaign against them.

If it is a truism that throwing mud at others is a reflection of what we fear most about ourselves, we might conclude from the abovementioned facts that, in contrast to the claims from Hanrine, Ecuador is under siege from legal mining bandits. Backed by organised crime and scoundrel layers in the form of a neoliberal national government, who are enabling them in environmentally destruction, it is transnational mining corporations—in this instance, Hanrine, and in other instances, any number of others—who are culpable for extractivist destruction in what remains of the world’s forests.

Even if the claims published in the corporate media are threadbare, hysterical and bizarre, they nevertheless serve to muddy and disguise these basic facts associated with the global ecological crisis and its root causes—claims that the Earth defenders demonised as a result of media propaganda and demonisation work tirelessly to draw attention to.

References

Cardona, Antonio José Paz (2021). ‘An Ecuadoran town that survived illegal miners now faces a licensed operator,’ Monga Bay, via https://news.mongabay.com/2021/08/an-ecuadoran-town-that-survived-illegal-miners-now-faces-a-licensed-operator/, accessed 20 September 2021

Cockburn, Gerard & Anton Nilsson (2021). ‘Ecuadorean mine owned by Gina Rinehart has been swarmed by illegal gold diggers,’ News.com.au, January 27, via https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/breaking-news/ecuadorean-mine-owned-by-gina-rinehart-has-been-swarmed-by-illegal-gold-diggers/news-story/d06110875a43d4741e72912724832ef2, accessed 20 September 2021

Mining Journal (2019). ‘”Illegal mining and its network of associated crimes must be stopped!” via https://www.mining-journal.com/politics/news/1366551/%E2%80%9Cillegal-mining-and-its-network-of-associated-crimes-must-be-stopped-%E2%80%9D, accessed 20 September 2021

Rainforest Action Group (2021). ‘Gina Rinehart’s Ecuador concession faces new trouble,’ April 26, via https://rainforestactiongroup.org/gina-rineharts-ecuador-concession-faces-new-trouble/, accessed 20 September 2021


Ben Debney is a PhD candidate in history at Western Sydney University, Bankstown. He is the author of The Oldest Trick in the Book: Panic-Driven Scapegoating in History and Recurring Patterns of Persecution (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020).
DE-ESCALATION, YES PLEASE
Germany will not supply weapons to Kyiv for now, defence minister says


Fri., January 21, 2022



BERLIN (Reuters) - Berlin is ruling out arms deliveries to Ukraine in the standoff with Russia for now, German Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht said in an interview published on Saturday, a few days after Britain started supplying Kyiv with anti-tank weapons.

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators also promised weapons to Ukraine, which could include missiles, small arms and boats, to help the country defend itself from a potential invasion amid a Russian military build-up https://www.reuters.com/world/top-diplomats-us-russia-meet-geneva-soaring-ukraine-tensions-2022-01-21 on its borders.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, however, has stressed Berlin's policy of not supplying lethal weapons to conflict zones.

"I can understand the wish to support Ukraine, and that's exactly what we are doing already," Lambrecht told the Welt am Sonntag weekly.

"Ukraine will receive a complete field hospital together with the necessary training in February, all co-financed by Germany for 5.3 million euros ($6.01 million)," she said, noting that Germany has been treating severely injured Ukrainian troops in its military hospitals for years.

But Berlin is not ready to supply Kyiv with weapons for the time being, the minister said.

"We have to do everything to de-escalate. Currently, arms deliveries would not be helpful in this respect, there is agreement on this in the German government," Lambrecht said.

With her remarks, she sided with German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock who said Germany would not criticize other countries for being ready to supply weapons to Ukraine.

"But I don't think it is realistic that such deliveries could tip the military balance," Baerbock told Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

"The most powerful weapon...is for NATO allies, EU member states and the G7 to make it clear (to Russia) that every fresh aggression will be answered with massive consequences."

($1 = 0.8818 euros)

(Reporting by Sabine Siebold, Editing by William Maclean)