Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Sunday, June 12, 2016


A gunman opened fire on a crowded nightclub in Orlando early Sunday, June 12. He killed at least 50 people. The final death toll is not known, but this shooting is already the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)


 


ORLANDO — The gunman who opened fire inside a crowded nightclub here early Sunday morning, launching a rampage that killed 50 people and injured 53 others in the deadliest shooting spree in the country’s history, had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State before the attack, according to U.S. law enforcement officials.
In a rampage that President Obama said the FBI was investigating as an act of terrorism, this gunman fired a barrage of bullets inside Pulse, a popular gay bar and dance club, forcing people to drop to the floor and rush out through a back entrance during the club’s “Latin night.”
After the first round of gunshots, police said the shooter held hostages for about three hours until officers stormed inside to rescue people and killed him in a shootout, though many details remained unclear about the standoff and the final confrontation.


Social media shared videos and pictures from the area surrounding Pulse nightclub in Orlando, where a gunman killed at least 50 people and injured dozens of others on Sunday, June 12. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

The gunman who killed at least 50 people in a shooting rampage at an Orlando nightclub has been identified as 29-year-old Omar Mateen. Here is what we know about him so far. (Deirdra O'Regan/The Washington Post)

Witnesses and others said the shooting left a gruesome scene behind, with the bloodshed 20 minutes away from Disney evoking the carnage seen in war zones. One doctor at a nearby hospital said that victims came in with their bodies riddled with gunshots, while others “had their calves and forearms blown off.”
While many waited for much of Sunday for information on whether their loved ones were among the dead in Orlando, concerns reverberated outward of broader dangers posed to the LGBT community. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said a heavily-armed man there was arrested while going to a gay pride parade, while police in Washington increased security ahead of a Capital Pride Festival in the nation’s capital.


“We know enough to say that this was an act of terror and an act of hate,” Obama said during remarks at the White House. “And as Americans, we are united in grief, in outrage, and in resolve to defend our people.”
The gunman, identified as 29-year-old Omar Mateen, made a 911 call before the attack identifying himself and declared allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State, according to U.S. law enforcement officials who asked not to be identified to discuss the ongoing investigation. Mateen, whose family is from Afghanistan, also cited the 2013 bombing of the Boston Marathon during that call.
Details about Mateen’s background began to emerge slowly on Sunday. Much like Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older of the two brothers who carried out the Boston attack, Mateen had been the focus of an FBI investigation before launching an attack.
Ron Hopper of the FBI said that Mateen had twice been investigated by the bureau and that in both cases, he was interviewed before the probes were concluded. In 2013, Hopper said agents investigated Mateen after he made “inflammatory comments to coworkers alleging possible ties to terrorists.” Mateen was interviewed twice and, when investigators were unable to verify the details of his comments, the FBI closed the probe, Hopper said.
Mateen was investigated again in 2014 by the FBI. This time, they looked into potential ties connecting Mateen to Moner Mohammad Abusalha, the first American to carry out a suicide attack in Syria. Like Mateen, Abusalha lived in Fort Pierce, Fla.
“We determined that contact was minimal and did not constitute a substantive relationship or a threat at that time,” Hopper said.
Mateen’s pledge on the 911 call echoes what happened after the attack in San Bernardino, Calif., last December. Just after a husband and wife killed 14 people last December in an attack there, one of the shooters went on Facebook and pledged her allegiance to the emirof the Islamic State, a militant group also known as ISIS or ISIL. Officials later said the posting was made on behalf of both attackers.
The Islamic State-linked Amaq News Agency said in a message Sunday that the Orlando shooting “was carried out by an Islamic State fighter.” The same news agency had released a message showing the Islamic State claiming some credit for the San Bernardino attacktwo days after that occurred, while Amaq posted a statement from the group asserting responsibility for the Brussels attacks in March within hours.
The Islamic State has repeatedly executed gay people and then released videos showing these gruesome executions.
Hopper said Sunday that the FBI was still working to determine a motive. He said officials had not found any indications of outside help or another suspect, and added that they were confident there were no additional threats.
Mateen’s ex-wife said in an interview Sunday that he beat her repeatedly during their brief marriage, and said that Mateen, who was Muslim, was not very religious and gave no indications that he was devoted to radical Islam.
Mina said it appeared the gunman was armed with “a handgun and an AR-15-type assault rifle” and had additional rounds on him. “It appears he was organized and well-prepared,” Mina said.
Mateen legally bought the two guns believed to be used in the attack legally within “the last few days,” Trevor Velinor of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Sunday.
An AR-15 is the civilian variant of the military M-16 rifle. It is one of the most popular weapons in the United States and can be customized with a variety of accessories including different grips and sights. A standard magazine for it carries about 30 bullets.
Authorities did not initially outline what exactly occurred in the club after the first shots were fired at about 2 a.m. and before police stormed the building. Some information did begin to slowly emerge during the day. Police had said in the morning that 20 people were killed before saying later that the toll was significantly higher. Until Sunday, the 2007 rampage at Virginia Tech — which saw 32 people killed and 30 others injured — was the country’s worst mass shooting.
Police did not immediately offer details on the three-hour standoff, but a senior U.S. law enforcement official said officers were being cautious as an active-shooter scene turned into a hostage negotiation.  When the gunman was inside during the hostage standoff, he was on the phone with police and no gunshots were heard, the official said.
“That is when you do wait,” the official said. “It was appropriate.”
But ultimately, police chose to go in and end the standoff because of concerns about treating the injured inside. Officials at nearby Orlando Regional Medical Center said at least nine of the people killed in the attack died at the hospital or were dead by the time they arrived.
Orlando Police Chief John Mina said that the toll from this latest mass slaughter could have been even greater, saying that a SWAT team “rescued at least 30 possible victims and brought them to safety.” Police said they were not able to say if all of the people killed or injured were shot during the initial burst of gunfire or during the shootout with 11 police officers three hours later.
“It’s absolutely terrible,” Mina said during a news briefing. “Fifty victims in one location, one shooting, is absolutely one of the worst tragedies we’ve seen.”
By Sunday afternoon, city officials had begun gradually releasing the names of victims who were killed after their relatives were informed.
In the aftermath of the shooting, officials said many things remained unknown, including:
  • Details about a possible motivation for the gunman and more about his background.
  • The final death toll.
  • Identities of the people killed and injured.
  • A clearer timeline of what happened inside the club and when all of the victims were injured.
A number of federal agencies were participating in a massive law enforcement response to the shooting in Orlando, authorities said. On Sunday afternoon, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who had been scheduled to attend a meeting in Beijing on cyber-security, said she was returning to Washington so she could monitor the ongoing investigation.
“We stand with the people of Orlando, who have endured a terrible attack on their city,” Obama said during a statement he made at the White House after meeting with FBI Director James Comey.
Obama said it was too early to know “the precise motivations of the killer,” but he said the FBI would investigate any possible links the gunman had to terrorist groups.
During his remarks Sunday afternoon, Obama — echoing comments he has made during numerous other statements given after shooting rampages — said the bloodshed in Orlando served as a reminder of how easily people can obtain guns in the United States. Pope Francis also expressed deep “horror and condemnation” of the shooting on Sunday, according to the Associated Press.
Obama also signed a proclamation honoring the victims and ordering that American flags be flown at half-staff until sunset on Thursday.

Read More

Blast from 'self-made' explosive injures five in Shanghai airport

A bomb disposal expert checks a luggage near the site of a blast at a terminal in Shanghai's Pudong International Airport, China, June 12, 2016.REUTERS/ALY SONG-Paramilitary policemen wait behind a cart as a bomb disposal expert checks a luggage near the site of a blast at a terminal in Shanghai's Pudong International Airport, China, June 12, 2016.
REUTERS/ALY SONG
Paramilitary policemen take position behind pillars as a bomb disposal expert checks a luggage near the site of a blast at a terminal in Shanghai's Pudong International Airport, China, June 12, 2016.REUTERS/ALY SONG-udong International Airport, China, June 12, 2016.REUTERS/ALY SONG


Sun Jun 12, 2016

A man set off a home-made explosive at a terminal in Shanghai's Pudong International Airport on Sunday, the city's government said, injuring five people, including himself.

The explosion occurred near the airport's Terminal Two ticketing area at about 2:20 p.m. and the people who were injured were taken away for medical treatment, the Shanghai government said in a short statement on its official microblog.

"According to an initial police investigation, a man took self-made explosive materials in a beer bottle out of his backpack and threw it at ticketing counter," the government said.

After the bottle exploded, he took out a knife and slashed his own neck, it said, adding that efforts to treat his "serious" injuries were underway.

Another four people were lightly injured by exploding glass, it said. The incident was under investigation and only the three flights in that ticketing area had been affected.

Unverified pictures on China's Weibo microblog showed a person on a gurney being wheeled away by medical attendants and a pool of blood on the floor.

A Reuters reporter at the airport said police in explosion-resistant suits were searching luggage, but that travelers could freely enter the building.

Explosives are relatively easy to obtain in China, home to the world's largest mining and fireworks industries.

A man in a wheelchair detonated a home-made explosive at Beijing's international airport in 2013, injuring himself in what was an apparent attempt to draw attention to an earlier grievance.

Individual Chinese unable to win redress in disputes have in the past resorted to extreme measures, including bombings, but such incidents are rare amid the tight security at the country's airports.

(Reporting by Aly Song in Shanghai and Michael Martina in Beijing; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore and Ros Russell)

Machiavelli and the primacy of politics

 

By Doug Enaa Greene

Dedicated to my friend Destiney Linker.

June 10, 2016 -- Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal -- If we were to look at most people who have existed throughout history – we can say that they lived in obscurity, dire poverty, possessing no titles or pretensions to greatness. They lived and died in toil. The vast majority of humanity has passed through these conditions. Yet what did these people think about their circumstances and what to do about them? While there has always been resistance and struggle to oppression, most people have understood their conditions to be divinely ordained, the natural “order of things,” that human nature is unchangeable, or that this is best of all possible worlds. In other words, there was often little concrete thinking about how to change their fate. In fact, we can safely say that the whole structure and ideology of class society from the Pax Romana to Pax Americana is designed to exclude the consideration of any alternatives.



The revolutionary left, more often than not, rather than challenging these modes of thinking, has tended to reinforce them. Trends such as economism, a naïve belief in “scientific laws” of history, reformism, faith in the development of the productive force or evolutionary social change have tended to encourage passivity and, ultimately, acceptance of the established order. These tendencies are not confined to any single group on the far left, but can be found amongst all them – Moscow-line Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, anarchists, etc. These modes of thought encourage mechanical determinism which foreclose action and serious thinking about politics and strategy.



In our time though, the predominant view on the left is not one of determinism or fatalism, but cynicism. According to the philosopher, Slavoj Zizek,

We all know the innocent child from Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes" who publicly proclaims the fact that the emperor is naked-today, in our cynical era, such a strategy no longer works, it has lost its disturbing power, since everyone now proclaims that the emperor is naked (that Western democracies are torturing terrorist suspects. that wars are fought for profit, etc., etc.), and yet nothing happens, nobody seems to mind, the system just goes on functioning as if the emperor were fully dressed.[1]


Even though we all know the “emperor has no clothes,” we still go through the motions and rituals of pretending that we believe, which helps to perpetuate the social order and the reigning ideology.



Despite the openly voiced cynicism when we utter that the system 'is corrupt and irreformable,' Zizek says that “we only imagine that we do not "really believe" in our ideology-in spite of this imaginary distance, we continue to practice it.”[2] This cynicism is not emancipatory and the message it conveys is “a resigned conviction that the world we live in, even if not the best of all possible worlds, is the least bad, such that any radical change will only make things worse.”[3] And in contrast to our cynical society with its lack of belief, those who do take their beliefs seriously, whether “terrorists” or communists are dismissed as barbarians and “a threat to culture—they dare to take their beliefs seriously?”[4] And if we do take our belief in an emancipated society seriously, then it is imperative upon us to not succumb to any of the pitfalls that our society is the “natural order,” passive determinism or cynicism. What it requires is that we do something else.



What I will propose here, basing myself largely upon Machiavelli (and drawing heavily from Gramsci and Althusser's readings of him), is another approach for Marxists – that of the primacy of politics. It is only through revolutionary praxis, building alliances of the oppressed and exploited, creating independent political organizations, and the development of strategy that we can win. This has been true of the great Marxist revolutionaries throughout history – whether Lenin, Gramsci or Mao. In other words, our approach, following that of Machiavelli is to grasp the primacy of politics by understanding our moment with its relation of forces, how to apply our strengths and act to create a new order that endures.

Philippines: Duterte ‘does not endorse’ extrajudicial killings – spokesman

Philippine president-elect Rodrigo Duterte.
Philippine president-elect Rodrigo Duterte.

11th June 2016

A SPOKESMAN for the Philippine’s president-elect Rodrigo Duterte said on Saturday that contrary to media reports, the tough-talking former mayor of Davao City does not endorse extrajudicial killings.
This follows the worldwide outcry against Duterte’s alleged remarks, when he was quoted last week as saying that some of the journalists who were killed in the country probably deserved their fate because they were corrupt.


Salvador Panelo, the incoming presidential spokesman, claimed that Duterte’s statement on media killings was based on “incorrect news reports”.

“The President-elect has not endorsed – can not – and will never endorse extrajudicial killings, they being contrary to law,” he said.
“He does not condone the killing of journalists nor any citizen for that matter, regardless of its purpose.”
He added that Duterte was merely chastising those involved in “irresponsible journalism”.
Dueterte’s remarks drew criticism not only from organizations such as the National Union of Journalists, but also the United Nations (UN).

On Wednesday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon called out Duterte for his “apparent endorsement” of extrajudicial killings.

In his speech at the UN Correspondents Association (UNCA) Directory Reception in New York, Ban said he was “extremely disturbed” by Duterte’s comments.

“I unequivocally condemn his apparent endorsement of extrajudicial killing, which is illegal and a breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Such comments are of particular concern in light of ongoing impunity for serious cases of violence against journalists in the Philippines,” he said.

Referring to Ban’s criticism, Panelo said that it was “unfortunate” that Ban had believed the inaccurate news reports that led to the misunderstanding.

Previously, Duterte was mayor of Davao City for seven terms, where vigilante “death squads” in the city roamed freely without much interference from authorities. Human rights organizations claim such groups killed more than 1,000 people.

Since being elected as president, he has courted controversy for his oft-controversial remarks, such as encouraging members of the public to shoot and kill drug dealers who resist arrest and fight back.
He is set to be officially sworn in as president on June 30.

Is Ukraine’s Joan of Arc Ready for Political Battle?

During her time in Russian prison, Nadiya Savchenko became a symbol for Kiev’s fight against Moscow. But can she make the jump from martyr to politician?
Is Ukraine’s Joan of Arc Ready for Political Battle?

BY IAN BATESON-JUNE 9, 2016

KIEV, Ukraine — Within a few days, Nadiya Savchenko went from a Russian prison cell to the floor of the Ukrainian Parliament. The 35-year-old pilot had spent nearly two years in captivity after Russia charged her with complicity in the deaths of two journalists in eastern Ukraine. Draping a Ukrainian flag over her shoulders and carrying a smaller Crimean Tatar flag, she stoically approached the lectern at the front of the hall and took down the banner that lawmakers had hung there calling for her release. She then replaced it with a different banner—this one for the Ukrainians still being held in Russia. In a glimpse of the political firebrand she could become, Savchenko, channeling the popular disappointment with the government of President Petro Poroshenko, chastised the roomful of politicians.

“I won’t let you sitting in these seats in the Verkhovna Rada forget about the guys who started laying down their lives for Ukraine on Maidan and [who] continue to die for her,” she said in her first speech to the national legislature. “They are still standing and won’t lie down in their graves until we get that Ukraine they died for.”

Outspoken, strong-willed, and unabashedly blunt, Savchenko is not one to mince her words. Captured by Russian-backed separatists in 2014 while fighting with a volunteer battalion in the Donbass region, Savchenko’s bold defiance throughout her imprisonment made her a national symbol for Ukraine’s larger struggle against Russia and saw her voted into Parliament in absentia in October 2014. Since her release, she has taken the Ukrainian media by storm: making headlines with straight talk about the sad state of the country’s politics, the ongoing war in the east, and the teetering national economy.


The day of her return to Ukraine, Savchenko refused to adhere to Poroshenko’s plan and be whisked from Kiev’s airport to the president’s quarters for her first press appearance. Instead, she delivered her first remarks as a free woman barefoot at the airport. The former prisoner has continued to defy convention and to make waves in Ukrainian politics,referring to herself as a “ballistic missile,” warning that the Ukrainian Parliament “fucks people over every day” and that she won’t participate, and telling members of Parliament that they are all aboard the Titanic and headed for disaster.

Savchenko’s whirlwind entry into Ukrainian politics became possible after she was finally released following months of negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian officials. In March, a Russian court sentenced her to 22 years in jail for complicity in the deaths of two Russian journalists killed by artillery. Western governments criticized proceedings as a show trial. On May 25, Savchenko was pardoned by Russian President Vladimir Putin and exchanged for two Russian intelligence officers captured in eastern Ukraine, catapulting her into the center of Ukrainian politics.

Her release from Russia and entrance onto the Ukrainian political scene mark a watershed moment. At a time of flagging support for the pro-Western government, many Ukrainians view her as the country’s most influential politician, despite previously never having spent a working day in Parliament. Savchenko’s comments have fired up Ukrainians desperate for a passionate and trustworthy leader, showing an outpour of public support since her arrival.

During her time in captivity, local media and activists dubbed her a modern-day Joan of Arc, a martyr role she accepted, taking on the cause of Ukrainian statehood.Savchenko missed the collapse of the grand post-Maidan coalition of all pro-Western parties and the exit of Ukraine’s foreign-born reformers such as former Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, who was not reappointed to the new cabinet, and former Economy Minister Aivaras Abromavičius and Deputy Internal Affairs Minister Eka Zguladze, both of whom resigned. So when Savchenko speaks she is still full of the vigor and commitment more reminiscent of the speeches made on Maidan’s main stage during the height of the demonstrations than the uninspired speeches given by Ukrainian politicians in recent months. Her years in confinement not only turned Savchenko into a canonized war hero in the eyes of the public, but they also made her into a relic of the revolutionary enthusiasm from the Maidan protests that ousted former President Viktor Yanukovych. The question that remains, however, is whether the former pilot can make the jump from political symbol to effective politician.

That answer may come sooner rather than later. Savchenko has already shown herself to be a potential threat to Ukraine’s establishment. Securing Savchenko’s release was a major victory for Poroshenko at a moment when reforms have stalled. It’s a mark of success on which Poroshenko is looking to capitalize; as he stated proudly in the wake of her release, Ukraine would take back Crimea and eastern Ukraine just as it had Savchenko.

And though Ukraine’s political leadership long lobbied for her release, it may not have considered that she had political goals of her own. During her first news conference after being released, Savchenko said that if the Ukrainian people wanted her to run for president she would. Immediately afterward Facebook groups began appearing supporting her presidential run. While releasing Savchenko may have given Poroshenko — whose approval rating has been hovering around 10 percent — a popularity boost, he may have created a long-term political rival.

But Poroshenko may not be the only politician to obstruct Savchenko’s rise — resistance to her political aspirations may also come from within her political party. Political observers in Ukraine are forecasting a conflict between Savchenko and her perennial Fatherland party leader, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. “From the first day in the Parliament we saw how Savchenko was accepted by the public and MPs. Yulia Tymoshenko seems sidelined now, which she doesn’t like of course,” said Taras Berezovets, director of Berta Communications, a Kiev-based political consultancy, who once worked as a strategist for Tymoshenko.

Before Savchenko’s entry onto the political scene, Tymoshenko, known for her trademark single braid, had been the highest-profile female politician in Ukrainian politics and has repeatedly fought for and failed to win the president’s seat. And, like Savchenko, Tymoshenko was imprisoned on what Western governments considered politically motivated charges. When Tymoshenko was released in February 2014, however, events did not play out as she had planned. Despite her two and a half years in prison and attempts by her party to present her as a martyr, she was booed on Maidan’s stage, with many associating her with corruption from her time as prime minister. Poroshenko later crushed her in the presidential election in May 2014, and then Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk – who had run the party during her imprisonment —broke ranks with Tymoshenko and started his own party. In the aftermath, Tymoshenko offered Savchenko, still in prison at the time, the No. 1 spot on the party list and formed a de facto alliance.

Now that Savchenko is back, Ukraine watchers are waiting to see if the war hero follows Tymoshenko’s lead or breaks out on her own. “She has the demeanor to be a good politician,” Berezovets says. “The problem is that she is not experienced and if she allows someone to be her puppeteer this would mean she would lose her place under the sun.” In the past, Ukrainian political leaders have used other high-profile figures — athletes and celebrities — to give the illusion of change in their parties while continuing politics as usual.

For now, at least, Savchenko seems to be playing along with her party, says Alex Ryabchyn, a lawmaker with the Fatherland party who entered politics after Maidan. “She is a team player. She knows what she knows and what she doesn’t and asks when she doesn’t. She learns quickly.”

Though Savchenko has tremendous public support, it remains unclear what she, a single member of Parliament, can achieve with her two highly publicized banner causes: the release of prisoners from Russia and Russian-backed separatists, and curtailing military corruption. But she appears, for the moment, confident in her newfound status. “Before I had to knock to get to the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine; now they knock on mine,” she told television Channel 112 Ukraine. Having successfully petitioned the Defense Ministry to make her the first woman allowed to attend an elite air force university after serving as a Ukrainian peacekeeper in Iraq, she is used to pressuring Ukrainian military bureaucracy and seeing results.

That military experience, as well as having fought with the volunteer Aidar battalion in eastern Ukraine, is another gold star on Savchenko’s pre-political resume and earned her credibility on the war with pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. During her first news conference, Savchenko said that “peace is possible only through war,” leading experts to worry that she would push for renewed fighting and an end to the unpopular Minsk peace accords, which are seen by many Ukrainians as saddling the country with the financial cost of rebuilding the east while leaving it under de facto Russian control. But she quickly walked back that statement a few days later on the political talk show “Shuster Live.”

Since then, Savchenko has continued to surprise her political detractors and chart her own course. She went to the front in the Donbass to meet with far-right former Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh but has also said she is prepared to negotiate peace with Russian-backed separatist leaders directly, a move Ukrainian leaders have previously categorically refused.

With her popularity rising and because she is shielded from criticism due to her status as a national symbol, Savchenko’s star can only rise. But even her sister, Vira Savchenko, worries about the personal toll her ordeal in Russia and a budding public career will take. “I am just sorry for her that she can’t even take time for herself,” said Vira, who was a persistent advocate for her sister’s release. “She can’t relax because everyone wants to get her involved with their programs.”

But beyond the sleepless nights, Savchenko’s weakened health from her hunger strikes and time in prison, Vira believes her sister possesses the inner strength to endure and overcome the challenges ahead.
“We have lost so much time and are losing our lives,” Vira Savchenko said. “[My sister] understands that there needs to be action.”

Photo credit: Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images

EUROPE: LET THE BRITS GO



June 11 2016
My beloved British godfather, Lynn Perkins, always used to warn me of the manifest evils of Europe and beyond, “remember, Eric, the wogs begin in Calais (pronounced ‘Callis’ by the Brits.)” Wog is a nasty British term for oily, untrustworthy foreigners.
I recall the Perkins warning because of the upcoming British referendum to stay in the European Union, or pull out. Polls suggest Brits will narrowly decide to stay in the EU; my instincts say the same.
But then again, remember all those ‘wogs.’ Britons are often too well-mannered to bring up this issue, particularly in polls. But deep down, many of Great Britain’s people still think of Europeans (Germans, Swiss and Scandinavians excepted) and all Arabs and Indians as wogs. These are people who eat smelly food with garlic and don’t turn bright red in the sun like the Brits.
That old imperialist, Winston Churchill, patron saint of America’s neocon right, dismissed India’s great Mahatma Gandhi as a ‘half-naked fakir.’ He loved the British Empire and sneered, like many of his countrymen, at “the lesser races.”
Problem is, that the “lesser races” have poured into Britain since the 1950’s, changing its traditional character, politics, and rules. White Britons are losing ground in the new, multicultural United Kingdom, just as whites in California are headed for minority status. A lot of Brits, particularly north of London, don’t like it. Add now the flood of over a million Arab and African refugees into the Continent has many Britons in a frenzy that their happy little island faces growing troubles.
Hence the “Brexit” movement that wants Britain to ditch the European Union, bar the wogs, and sail off serenely on its own. They are whispering, “better be a full colony of the United States than another member of the do-nothing European Union.” To many Brits, it’s intolerable watching the hated French and Germans be the big dogs of the EU. Particularly the sneaky French who lust to get revenge for Waterloo.
Brexit partisans, taking a page from Trump’s book, ‘Presidency for Dummies,’ are becoming increasingly anti-Muslim, warning of fanciful terrorist threats and armies of lust-crazed Muslim dervishes coming to rape and pillage peaceful Britain.
The same contrived hysteria was whipped up when the British Empire was colonizing Africa in the 1800’s. And recently, when insular Brits quailed in terror before an expected invasion of Polish plumbers. Less sophisticated Britons just don’t like foreigners. I recall a Brit that I met in Paris who would only eat hard boiled eggs because “everything is filthy here in France.”
Brexiters assure the public that once the UK ditches the EU it will boom economically and establish close bilateral trade relations with the EU. In short, they will get all the benefits of the EU but escape its pesky requirements. Pork pie in sky!
The Continental EU members have long regarded Britain as an American Trojan Horse designed to keep Europe under Washington’s thumb. They don’t trust London and mock British pretensions of imperial grandeur. They also want a big slice of the City of London’s financial pie.
Europeans fear Brexit might very well create a domino effect, inspiring the EU’s weak sisters, like Greece and Italy – and maybe Spain, Portugal, or even Holland – to decamp and return to their bad old financial ways. The Russians and Americans would be pleased to see the EU founder, thus removing a strategic and economic competitor.
But a British departure from the union would be very unwise, even tragic. For all its blundering bureaucracy, over-expansion, stultifying regulations, and lack of full financial integration, the European Union was a majestic, historic achievement for war-ravaged Europe. Today, the EU is the world’s leader in human rights, education, more humane treatment of animals, transportation, environmental protection and universal health protection.
This is a huge, unprecedented accomplishment that must be safeguarded. I was again reminded of it while recently watching the commemoration of the frightful battle of Verdun that cost nearly one million French and German casualties.
If the Brits want out, let them go – but keep the Irish and Scots. The Brits never added much to the EU anyway beyond sneers and complaints. But they can’t go without paying a steep exit tax to discourage other potential deserters. An independent not so great Britain would likely become a giant American theme park in the North Atlantic while being mooned by the annoying French.
Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2016

Russian minister says violent fans brought shame on country

Vitaly Mutko says trouble at England game was unacceptable, but does not affect Russia’s suitability to host 2018 World Cup
Uefa is to open a disciplinary case against Russian fans after Saturday’s violence in Marseille. Photograph: Sportsphoto Ltd./Allstar

 in Moscow-Sunday 12 June 2016

The Russian sports minister has said some of its football fans had brought shame on the country, but that Saturday’s violence in Marseille before and after the match with England had nothing to do with its suitability to host the 2018 World Cup.

Uefa told both Russia and England fans on Sunday afternoon that their teamscould be thrown out of Euro 2016.

Earlier in the day, it had announced that it would open a disciplinary case against Russian fans over crowd disturbances, racist behaviour and fireworks being set off. It expressed “utter disgust” at the violent scenes that followed the final whistle.

England has escaped a similar hearing because the clashes in which England fans appeared to have some blame mainly took place outside the stadium.

When asked about the implications for 2018 as he left the stadium after the game, Vitaly Mutko said: 
“What’s the 2018 World Cup got to do with it?”

Mutko, who was on the pitch after the final whistlewaving at Russian fans close to where the clashes were taking place, initially said the trouble had been exaggerated, and even claimed “there was no clash ... in fact everything is fine here”.

Later, however, he appeared to admit that the scenes were unacceptable and said it was a “normal procedure” for Uefa to open disciplinary hearings. “It’s clear that some people didn’t come here to watch football. They’ve covered their faces and then brought shame on their country,” he said.

Immediately before the game, the Russian response played down the clashes in Marseille and pinned the blame on the England fans. State television reported that drunken England fans had attacked their Russian counterparts, but had then been forced to flee after the Russians fought back. Others admitted there was a problem with Russian fans, but believed England fans had provoked them.

“There are Russian hooligans, of course, but I don’t think they are worse in Russia than elsewhere in central and eastern Europe,” said the Russian sports journalist Artur Petrosyan, who was at the game. He said he had arrived in Marseille on Wednesday when there were thousands of England fans in town but few Russians, and saw clashes between England fans and locals, suggesting it was England fans who initiated the atmosphere of violence.

“Yes, we have a problem, but there shouldn’t be double standards. It doesn’t make sense why Uefa would open a case against Russia but not against England,” he said. Uefa has said it can only apply sanctions for events which take place inside the stadium.

England fans were singing “rude songs” about the tennis player Maria Sharapova and the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, said Petrosyan, which riled the Russia fans.

Russian viewers were also surprised by the lack of proper segregation at the stadium. Russian football games are heavily policed, and cordons of stewards and riot police are usually present in high-risk matches. 

There were a number of incidents at Euro 2012 involving Russian fans, including an assault on stadium staff at one match, and the racial abuse of the Czech Republic defender Theodor Gebre Selassie.

Uefa gave Russia a deferred punishment of having to play three Euro 2016qualifiers behind closed doors, to be activated if trouble occurred during the qualifying games. This did not happen, however, and Saturday’s violence was the first serious trouble involving Russia fans since the 2012 tournament.

In the first instance, Russian officials will be hoping there is not a repeat of the violence in later games. 
Russia and England’s next games are in Lille and Lens respectively, two cities that are very close to each other, raising the possibility of repeat clashes. The small possibility of a last 16 clash with Ukraine would also be a potential nightmare for tournament organisers.

The Russian football association released a statement on Sunday telling fans that further violence could lead to sanctions and called on them to “show respect to our opponents and their supporters”.

Russian sport is already undergoing a difficult period, with a number of scandalscentred around doping and uncertainty about whether the athletics team will be banned from the Rio Olympics.

A decision is due this week, while a new German documentary has madeallegations that Mutko was personally involved in covering up doping. Russia has often claimed that allegations of doping, corruption and other sporting malpractice are part of an “information war” by the west against them, and may take a similar line if punished harshly for the violence in Marseille.

Two years before the World Cup, fan groups have already expressed worries about potential racism against players and supporters, a problem that Russian authorities have repeatedly denied or played down. That will now be augmented by fears of hooliganism.

Many Russian ultras idolise the gang culture of 1970s English clubs, and some domestic fixtures are often accompanied by violence, although the kind of scenes witnessed in Marseille on Saturday are rare.

Rubella and pregnancy


March of Dimes Foundation. A Fighting Change For Every BabyMarch, 2012

Rubella, also called German measles, is an infection that causes mild flu-like symptoms and a rash on the skin. Only about half of people infected with rubella have these symptoms. Others have no symptoms and may not even know they’re infected.

Rubella is only harmful to an unborn baby in the womb. If you get infected during pregnancy, rubella can cause serious problems for your baby.

Rubella has been eliminated in the United States because of routine vaccination of children. Vaccination protects a person against rubella for life. Only five cases of rubella were reported in this country between 2001 and 2004. But women who were never vaccinated as children can get infected.

Rubella is common in many other countries. Travelers can bring it into the United States, or you can get it when travelling outside the country.

It’s important to get vaccinated for rubella. Talk to your health care provider to make sure you’re protected against it.

What are signs and symptoms of rubella?

About half of people with rubella have signs and symptoms, and half don’t. Rubella is usually mild with flu-like symptoms followed by a rash. The rash often lasts about 3 days. Flu-like symptoms include:
  • Low-grade fever
  • Headache
  • Runny nose
  • Red eyes
  • Swollen glands
  • Muscle or joint pain

What causes rubella?

Rubella is caused by a virus (a tiny organism that can make you sick). It’s very contagious and is spread through the air from an infected person’s cough or sneeze.

What problems can rubella cause during pregnancy?

Rubella can be a serious threat to your pregnancy, especially during the first and second trimesters. Having rubella during pregnancy increases the risk of:
  • Congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) – This is a condition that happens when a mother passes rubella to her baby during pregnancy. It may cause a baby to be born with one or more birth defects, including heart problemsmicrocephaly, vision problems, hearing problems, intellectual disability, bone problems, growth problems, and liver and spleen damage.
  • Miscarriage – This is when a baby dies in the womb before 20 weeks of pregnancy.
  • Stillbirth – This is when a baby dies in the womb after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
  • Premature birth – This is birth that happens too early, before 37 weeks of pregnancy.

Can you pass rubella to your baby during pregnancy?

Yes. The best way to protect your baby is to make sure you’re immune to rubella. Immune means being protected from an infection. If you're immune to an infection, it means you can't get the infection.

Most likely you’re immune to rubella because you were vaccinated as a child or you had the illness during childhood. A blood test can tell whether or not you’re immune to rubella. If you’re thinking about getting pregnant and aren’t sure if you’re immune, talk to your health care provider about getting a blood test.
If you’re not immune to rubella, here’s what you can do to help protect your baby:

Before pregnancy. Get the measlesmumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Wait 1 month before trying to get pregnant after getting the shot.

During pregnancy. You can be tested at a prenatal visit to make sure you’re immune to rubella. If you’re not immune, the MMR vaccine isn’t recommended during pregnancy. But there are things you can do to help prevent getting infected with rubella:
  • Stay away from anyone who has the infection.
  • Tell your health care provider right away if you’ve been in contact with someone who has rubella.
After pregnancy. Get the MMR vaccination after you give birth. Being protected from the infection means you can’t pass it to your baby before she gets her own MMR vaccination at about 12 months. It also prevents you from passing rubella to your baby during a future pregnancy.

What are the chances of passing rubella to your baby during pregnancy?

You’re more likely to pass rubella to your baby the earlier you become infected during pregnancy. For example:
  • If you get rubella in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, your baby has about an 8 to 9 in 10 chance (85 percent) of getting infected.
  • If you get rubella at 13 to 16 weeks of pregnancy, your baby has about a 1 in 2 chance (50 percent) of being infected.
  • If you get rubella at the end or your second trimester or later, your baby has about a 1 in 4 chance (25 percent) of getting infected.
If you have rubella during pregnancy, your baby’s provider carefully monitors your baby after birth to catch any problems early.


Last reviewed: March, 2012

REPORT : VOICES OF CIVIL SOCIETY: DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS & JUSTICE IN SRI LANKA

slb no 11 for web
(10 leading civil society persons speak to SLB on Human Rights in Sri Lanka)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sri Lanka Brief11/06/2016

The implementation of pledges made by the new Government to the people of Sri Lanka and to the international community on human rights and reconciliation has not yet proceeded as expected. Early enthusiasm on achieving much needed democratic reforms and a corruption-free governance has started to recede. The Government has not sufficiently implemented issues like demilitarisation, resettlement, release of political prisoners, and has not repealed the PTA. The most needed security sector reforms are left untouched.

At the same time, people have been able to assert their civil and political rights through the democratic space that opened up through the regime change in 2015, even if the transitional justice process still remains a serious concern. In addition, the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights need an economic space which has not yet been opened up.

These developments have to be located within the wider political context. The current so-called ‘good governance’ Government is a coalition of two major political parties which fought each other to capture state power for more than five decades. Mistrust and antagonistic feeling of each other are therefore embedded in both parties. Indeed, this coalition is a marriage of necessity rather than of conviction. Yet, one of the factors that hold both parties together is the commitment shown by President Sirisena, the leader of the SLFP, and by Prime Minister Wickremasinghe, the leader of the UNP, towards democratic reforms. This also includes the drive to find a political solution to the ethnic issue.

In this context, two other actors have played a pivotal positive role: On the one hand, civil society has been effective to hold the two political leaders accountable in regards to the promises they made and the mechanisms they have established to ensure good governance and the implementation of human rights. On the other hand, the international community have expressed economic and political support to the Government and pushed the reform process forward.

In contrast to this, former President Rajapaksa mobilises against the Government and his efforts to weaken the Government by fostering Sinhala nationalist extremism is a major risk factor in the country. He has not allowed current President Sirisena to take the reins of SLFP and has created his own faction of the party, campaigning and mobilising against any criminal justice procedures undertaken against members of the military. Seemingly, Rajapaksa aims to play the military against the new Government and its reform process.

A second destabilising factor, that has not been sufficiently considered yet, is the possibility of an economic recession. Currently, the country is facing a debt trap. Sri Lanka’s foreign debt increased during Rajapaksa’s second term from US$ 18.6 billion in 2009 to US$ 44.8 billion in 2015. Sri Lanka’s debt servicing costs, i.e. capital repayments and interest costs, amounted to US$ 4.68 billion in 2015 which constitutes 45% of the country’s export earnings of the same year. These economic considerations clearly call for economic reforms which seem to be the weakest link of the current Government and need to be addressed urgently.

As a whole, the reform process has gained an important momentum recently, probably in view of the upcoming 32nd session of the Human Rights Council in June 2016. The Government has improved its relations with the UNHRC and has opened up the country for human rights scrutiny by UN agencies.
Despite the different weaknesses in the reform process, this current political momentum remains the best opportunity for Sri Lanka to move its reforms forward, to ensure democratic governance and to assert the rights for its people.

Read full report as a PDF: Briefing Note, Sri Lanka No 11 #HRC32