WATCH: Anger and tears as Iraqis give their verdicts on Tony Blair

MEE travelled to the holy cities of Karbala and Najaf to ask Iraqis their opinions on Tony Blair ahead of the Chilcot report

Alex MacDonald-Tuesday 5 July 2016

The release of the Chilcot report on Wednesday has reignited calls for Tony Blair to face charges over allegedly misleading the country over the case for war and for the conduct of British forces in the country during the occupation.

Millions of words have been written and said about the war from the perspective of the UK, but what do Iraqis feel about Tony Blair and the war in the run-up to the report's release?

Middle East Eye travelled to southern Iraq to speak to Iraqis in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala and find out their views on Blair 13 years after the invasion.

Many initially welcomed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, who had ruled the country with an iron fist for decades. 

The Shia of Iraq, who make up the majority of the population, faced particular repression under Saddam’s rule and his removal led to an explosion in Shia political and religious consciousness.

But the war and its aftermath still provoke strong feelings within Iraq.

"Tony Blair did not bring anything to Iraq other than destruction," Nasser Jabbar Farhan, a teacher from Karbala, told MEE. 

Despite the introduction of parliamentary elections and freedom of speech, the rise in lawlessness, militant violence, power shortages, sectarianism and other negative fallout from the war means that many now view the invasion with bitterness.

Bookseller Abu Iskandari al-Jaafari said Blair helped liberate Iraq from the regime of Saddam Hussein. "Tony Blair as a prime minister was a very good person for his country and helped Iraq, contributed something to Iraq but we did not think things would end up like this."

'Occupier not liberator'

Al-Jaafari said Iraqis wanted to be freed from Saddam Hussein, but “those who came to Iraq are not competent to govern Iraq.”

Others complained that electricity and water were still not working years after the war and the health and living standards of Iraqis had suffered due to the invasion.

Farhan added that the UK came to Iraq only to serve the interests of the Americans: “He [Blair] came as an occupier not a liberator.

"The infrastructure was destroyed."

Brexit exposes faults lines in UK and Europe- Political sclerosis, ethnic-nativism and new-populism

by Kumar David-July 2, 2016, 8:56 pm 

A de facto ménage trois of the Labour Party, most Tory MPs cum Prime Minister and Scotland’s SNP, or to put it in class terms, an alliance of the educated elite and new working class around London, the uppity middle class, and high capital, was bested at the Brexit referendum by an grouping of English provincials, working classes in Labour heartlands who have suffered deprivation, and aged seekers of British sovereignty. I will discuss this huge event in the context of a swing to the right in Europe and America.

Donald Trump and the rage he has inspired isn’t neo-fascist in a proper sense; it is coarse and vulgar populism, refutation of moderation and a pantomime of Islamo- and Latino- phobia. The new or far right in Europe (UK Independence Party, Democratic Front in Denmark, France’s Front National, Austria’s Freedom Party and the Danish Peoples Party) which sometimes win over 20% of the vote is more interesting and is not the same as the fascism of interwar years. The difference is on three counts. On the ideological side it is anti-immigrant ‘keep the nation white’ cultural nativism, Islamophobia and physical insecurity. Second is economic anxiety heightened by staggering wealth and income inequality, high youth unemployment and frozen wages. Third is absence of an alternative social and economic model despite the manifest failure of global capitalism. Soviet Communism has disintegrated and capitalism is in the throes of a fifteen year crisis (whose origin lies in 2001), a cul-de-sac from which there seems to be no exit. On the left are as many sectarian fragments as denominations among Protestants. The ‘masses’ in disarray seek salvation in the clumsy vulgarity of a Trump or in a suave, shrewd and silver-tongued Nigel Farage.

Islamophobia is a unifier whose main strength is not demonization of Islam by its defilers but the failure of Islam’s leaders to grasp the nettle of stewardship. They have failed to project ‘their’ Islam and have allowed political Islam to be defined by others; both its denigrators and its apologist in the West. Islam as a political entity is not defined by its captains; rather it allows itself to be defined by others. This is what Edward Said, an interesting intellectual but too verbose a writer, termed Orientalism or the West defining the orient in tune with its own perceptions. "In the eighteenth century there emerged an orient suitable for study in academy, for display in museums, for the colonial office, for illustration in anthropological, biological and historical thesis" (Orientalism). The same was true of China before the revolution but no longer; China now robustly defines itself for itself and for the world. [Islam as religion, as distinct from political Islam, has retained its identity and weathered Western redefinition of its tenets].

Not so with political Islam; both radical and "moderate" versions are established by default in Western discourse because Islamic society has proved impotent to throw up leaders equal to this task. In the aftermath of every jihadist attack who says "This is not Islam! Real, ‘moderate’ Islam is like this, or it is like that"? Barrack Obama, Noam Chomsky or other vicarious spokesmen. Modern political Islam has not found its voice, its Mao, its Pope Francis, or its version of the European cultural identity underpinning the EU. The Arab Spring has turned into bitter winter; the tyrant Sissi brutalises Egypt and condemns to death all who expose his despotism. The need for political revolution has never been greater, or remoter, from Atlantic to the Java Sea, from Zanzibar to Kazakhstan. Tragically, the failure of political Islam to define itself has also emasculated the ability of Palestinians to regain their lands from a Zionism which is blind to their very existence. Like the colonisers of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, who saw in Africa a space void of humans to occupy, colonise and exploit, so too Zionism is blind to the existence of humans who have lived, toiled and reproduced in these promised lands from Roman times. 

Rise of the European right

The European new-right is not the old stuff of Mussolini and Hitler. The feature common to all the European new-right is not an economic agenda, anti-working class politics or addiction to authoritarianism. The common thread is aversion to immigration which finds resonance in provincial middle-classes, and when blended with rejection of economic privation, finds resonance in the working class as well. The traditional working class in North Eastern England and the Midlands broke with the Labour Party and supported Brexit, so much so that UKIP seems poised to do to Labour in its working class heartland what the SNP has done to it in Scotland.

Immigrants are a no longer negligible in number and the swing to the right is a defensive reaction. More than fear of immigrants straining the welfare system is a perceived threat to culture and way of life. Natives incorrectly blame immigrants for the wage freeze, economic austerity and deterioration of public services including healthcare and transport but Labour’s unifying message does not get across because it is not perceived as much different from the message of the Cameron Tories.

Here is a typical extract from the web. "Have sympathy for preservation of Scandinavian people and culture. No-one asked the native population if they minded thousands of "others" dumped in their towns, villages, and in some cases homes. Those who watch arrivals are criticized if they object and ignored when they are victims of rape or violence. Native populations are fearful of being swamped by people with cultures different and incompatible with their own". This is a more complex phenomenon than racism or religious intolerance; the Brexit backlash in England was a reaction against white, Christian, EU immigrants and this drives home the point. (Scotland and Northern Ireland were atypical for other reasons).

Brexit fallout

There is good reason why Plato despised democracy; he would have derided the Brexit outcome. Nonetheless in the twenty-first century one must bow to it; this decision cannot be reversed except by an implausible second referendum. Even then the terms of re-entry would be less acceptable than the prevailing terms. Therefore other matters assume urgency – what the English do about their predicament is not a priority. First is Scotland’s independence, its right to self-determination and ensuring its EU status. Scotland is already part of the EU so it is best to fast-track its membership to take effect simultaneously with the UK’s exit. A second Scottish independence referendum must be scheduled within the UK’s two year quit-EU window.

The EU has to be transformed from a club run by political elites who lord it over millions but ignore them and ice the cake for finance capital. The hubris of the Brussels bureaucracy - snooty civil servants and fat-cat former bankers - is detested by the citizenry. Now there are demands for referenda to quit the EU or exit the Euro elsewhere, and if they succeed, loathing of Brussels’ bureaucrats will be no small reason. The EU has to change from a top-down project run by finance capital and bureaucrats into an expression of the public will. But this won’t happen since bureaucrats, more than survival minded politicians undermine systemic change, adding grist to the charge that the EU is fundamentally undemocratic. The crunch is deeper; people have lost faith in political and business establishments, governing elites and political parties of all hues right across Europe, America and much of the rest of the world.

Nigel Farage in the flush of victory told the TV cameras "The Labour vote has come to us; we will replace the Labour Party" – I have mentioned the ghost of the SNP returning in a UKIP avatar to haunt Jeremy Corbyn and lost-in-the-woods Labour. Corbyn has been a lukewarm persona and projects little energy or leadership charisma, still, the failure of Labour to deliver its anti-Brexit vote is not anyone’s fault but due to the basics I outlined. He must now stand firm, confront the saboteurs and move Labour to a post-EU era. Brexit is an earthquake that terminates free entry of EU citizens and ‘Scotxhit’ will be an aftershock which if followed by changes in Northern Ireland’s status will re-christen the United Kingdom (UK) as United Twindom (UT) of England & Wales. The Labour Party has to modernise its programme and its immigration policies if it is to remain credible in the UT. This is the moment for Jeremy Corbyn to make a bid for greater power in the Party and take control of the nomination slate for the next election.

There is another challenge that will drag on for generations; I am returning to my first discussion. The failed states of the Middle East will not be repaired for a long time even after the wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan end. It takes time for men with fractured femurs to stand again. The UN High Commission for Refugees says there are 60 million refugees worldwide. Most are internal refugees (IDPs) and only a fifth international but millions of IDPs are potential international refugees. Some respite may be found if the rich world, in its terror of an immigrant deluge, were compelled to transfer sufficient investments to broken nations to kick-start large scale development. A district in Switzerland paid a hefty fine rather than take its allocated share of refugees. Ah the Swiss are fine fellows! They have pioneered a fine way for the survival of prosperous societies in isolation!

Philippines police boast of 30 drug killings since Duterte was sworn in on Thursday

Hardline president’s ascension to office is followed by wave of shootings, prompting outcry over ‘serial summary executions of users and petty drug lords’

Rodrigo Duterte, shown appointing the Philippines’ new police chief, Ronald Dela Rosa, has pledged to take brutal measures against drug traffickers. Photograph: Aaron Favila/AP

Tuesday 5 July 2016

Thirty “drug dealers” have been killed since Rodrigo Duterte was sworn in as Philippine president on Thursday, police said, announcing the seizure of nearly US$20m (£15m) worth of narcotics but sparking anger from a lawyers’ group.

Duterte won the election in May on a platform of crushing crime, but his incendiary rhetoric and advocacy of extrajudicial killings have alarmed many who hear echoes of the country’s authoritarian past.

Oscar Albayalde, police chief for the Manila region, said five drug dealers were killed on Sunday in a gun battle with police in a shanty town near a mosque near the presidential palace.

“My men were about to serve arrest warrants when shots rang out from one of the houses in the area,” Albayalde told reporters, saying police returned fire and killed five men.

Four guns and 200 grams of crystal methamphetamine were recovered. Three other people were killed in other areas in Manila on Sunday and 22 were killed in four areas outside the capital.

More than 100 people have died – said to have been mostly suspected drug dealers, rapists and car thieves – in stepped up anti-crime police operations since the election on 9 May.

Edre Olalia, secretary general of the National Union of People’s Lawyers, said the killings must be halted.

“The drug menace must stop … Yet the apparent serial summary executions of alleged street drug users or petty drug lords which appear sudden, too contrived and predictable must also stop,” he said in a statement. “The two are not incompatible.“

In the north of the main island of Luzon, drug enforcement agents and police seized a shipment of 180kg (400lb) of “shabu” (methamphetamine) worth about 900m pesos ($19.23m) from either China or Taiwan, said national police chief Ronald dela Rosa said.

The shipment was unloaded at sea and brought to shore by small fishing boats before delivery to Manila’s Chinatown, he said.

On Sunday the Maoist-led New People’s Army rebels issued a statement supporting Duterte’s all-out war against drugs, saying it might conduct its own drug operations against soldiers, police and local officials.

Modi expands cabinet into one of biggest in recent years

BY RAJESH KUMAR SINGH-Wed Jul 6, 2016

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi inducted 19 new ministers into his cabinet on Tuesday to bolster his two-year-old administration but drew criticism that he was backtracking on a promise of lean government.

The Indian government late on Tuesday released details of the new portfolios. Modi has moved his minister for human resources, Smriti Irani, seen as a close ally, to the textiles ministry. The minister of state for finance, Jayant Sinha, was shifted from aviation.

Prakash Javadekar, who was sworn in earlier in the day at a ceremony at the presidential palace, took on Irani's former portfolio.

Among other big changes, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley dropped his additional charge as information and broadcasting minister.

Modi's cabinet has now swelled to 78 - one of the biggest in years and a far cry from his 2014 election promise of "minimum government and maximum governance".

"If this was a reform-minded government, you would be reducing the numbers of people and portfolios, shedding ministries," said Manoj Joshi, a political expert at Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi.

"What you can read from this is that it is not particularly efficient or concerned about governance," Joshi said, referring to Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

Modi swept to power in May 2014 on a promise of jobs and growth. Critics have questioned his government's performance and political analysts say the ruling party suffers from a shortage of experienced members.

A number of new ministers hail from India's "backward" castes, members of which are widely expected to play a critical role in an election in the most populous state of Uttar Pradesh next year.

That state election is likely to have a bearing on Modi's bid to retain power in a general election due by 2019.

"His eyes are set on his re-election in 2019," said Neerja Chowdhury, an independent political analyst. "He has given representation to the social groups that voted for him in the last general election."

(Additional reporting by Tommy Wilkes and Malini Menon; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

FBI recommends no criminal charges in Clinton email probe

Clinton has come under fire for using a private e-mail address during her time as secretary of state. The emails are being screened and released in batches. Here are some things we’ve learned from them.

FBI Director James Comey said on July 5 that Hillary Clinton did send and receive classified emails during her time as secretary of state, but shouldn't be charged with criminal misconduct. (Reuters)
By Matt Zapotosky and Rosalind S. Helderman July 5 at 1:05 PM

FBI Director James B. Comey said Tuesday that his agency will not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server as secretary of state but called Clinton and her staff “extremely careless” in handling sensitive material.

The announcement means that Clinton will not have to fear criminal, legal liability as her campaign moves forward, though Comey leveled sharp criticism at the past email practices of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and called into question many of the defenses she has raised in recent weeks.

The FBI director said those who acted as Clinton and her staffers did were “often subject to security or administrative sanctions,” though in comparing her case with similar investigations in the past, the bureau did not find any of the aggravating factors that typically lead to the filing of criminal charges.

[Full transcript of Comey’s statement]

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said. He said that while the ultimate decision would be left up to the Justice Department, the FBI was expressing its view “that no charges are appropriate in this case.”

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia, whose prosecutors are involved in the case, declined to comment. A Justice Department spokeswoman said she was preparing a possible response.

Hillary for America campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement: “We are pleased that the career officials handling this case have determined that no further action by the Department is appropriate. As the Secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”

The announcement — which came only about 72 hours after FBI agents interviewed Clinton, and only about a week after former president Bill Clinton had an impromptu meeting with U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch aboard her plane — immediately sparked criticism that the outcome of the high-profile probe was a foregone conclusion, influenced heavily by political considerations.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump tweeted, “The system is rigged,” and asserted that former general and CIA director David H. Petraeus, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information, “got in trouble for far less.” Petraeus was accused of turning over highly classified information to a woman with whom he was having an affair, and agents believe he lied to the FBI, though he was never charged with that particular crime.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement that Comey’s announcement “defies explanation.”

“No one should be above the law. But based upon the director’s own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law,” Ryan said. “Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent.”

Comey did not take questions, though he acknowledged in his statement that his recommendation would create “intense public debate” and defended the bureau’s work as apolitical.

[Hillary Clinton’s email problems might be even worse than we thought]

“I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation — including people in government — but none of that mattered to us,” Comey said. “Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did our investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way.”

While he recommended no criminal charges, Comey nevertheless systematically dismantled the public explanations Clinton has offered to reassure the public about her email system for the past 15 months.

When it was first revealed that Clinton used a personal email account during her years in office, Clinton first said that she had never sent or received classified material through the account. She later amended those statements to say that her emails contained no information that was clearly marked as classified. Her supporters also insisted that a finding of sensitive material by the State Department and other government agencies was retroactive, a judgment by bureaucrats after the fact to “upgrade” material to a classified level.

Comey dismissed each of those explanations. He said that a careful analysis by officials from multiple agencies found there was classified material and that in 110 emails, the information was sensitive enough to be classified at the time it was sent, not just after the fact. Seven email chains included information that was properly classified as “top secret” dealing with “special access programs,” the very highest level of classification. He confirmed that Clinton authored some of the most concerning emails and that the conversations were sufficiently sensitive that a person in her job should have known they contained classified material.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” Comey said. He said that while only a very small number were properly marked as classified, “even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Clinton has also always insisted that she submitted to the State Department all of her work-related correspondence from her time as secretary. Comey said the FBI had recovered thousands of work-related emails that had not been turned over, though he added that investigators found no evidence of misconduct in their deletion.

Clinton assured the public that there was no evidence her server or devices had been hacked. Comey agreed there was no such evidence but concluded that the lack of a clear intrusion should give no confidence that the system had not been breached. He specifically noted Clinton’s practice of sending and receiving emails while traveling in foreign countries with sophisticated surveillance technology. He also said that multiple people with whom Clinton regularly communicated on the system are known to have been hacked and that the private setup was not protected by government security staff assigned to protect government email. “Given that combination of factors,” he said, “we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Comey also revealed new details about the system’s setup, undermining Clinton’s promise that she had already been fully transparent about her system. For instance, Clinton and her aides have routinely referred to the server that had been maintained in her home. Comey for the first time revealed that Clinton had used multiple servers during her time in office.

It is unclear who will make the ultimate decision not to charge Clinton. On Friday, Lynch announced that she would accept recommendations from career prosecutors and FBI agents leading the probe — a decision that she said had been made before her impromptu, social meeting with Bill Clinton but one that was surely meant to quiet criticism about the independence of the probe.

Brian Murphy and Abby Phillip contributed to this report.

Independence Day Hypocrisy, Not Democracy

by Stephen Lendman

( July 4, 2016, Chicago, Sri lanka Guardian) On July 4, 1776, America gained independence from Britain. Everything changed but stayed the same under new management – the way the framers planned it.

Today we’d call them a Wall Street crowd – a deplorable bunch, including bankers, merchants, planters, ship owners, lawyers, politicians, judges, slave owners and traders, speculators, smugglers, privateers, and other type wheeler-dealers.

“We the people,” meant them, not us. They created a government of men, not laws. Property owners alone had rights. Ordinary people didn’t matter, entirely left out.

America’s first chief Supreme Court Justice John Jay said America should be run by men who own it. John Adams stressed having “the rich, well-born and able” in charge.

Government of, by and for the people was doublespeak, the general welfare for the privileged few, democracy verboten. America’s founders had their own interests alone in mind.

The Constitution they created was no masterpiece of political architecture. Alexander Hamilton called it “a shilly shally thing of mere milk and water…a frail and worthless document.” Benjamin Franklin had doubts, America’s grand old man, an enfeebled figurehead at the time.

Mischaracterized father of the Constitution James Madison said “I am not of the number, if there be such, who think (it’s) a faultless work.” After its adoption, he explained “(s)omething, anything, was better than nothing.” Later he spent years disapproving of what’s in it.

None of the 55 framers believed the Constitution was the glorious achievement it’s portrayed to be. Only 39 signed it. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were abroad at the time, serving in ambassadorial roles to Britain and France respectively.

Adams was the leading constitutional theorist of his time. He spent years criticizing it privately. Jefferson was disaffected. Until it was added, he objected to the omission of a Bill of Rights – belatedly included to protect the interests of the nation’s privileged, not its ordinary people.

Jefferson believed America’s founding document couldn’t stand the test of time. He urged a new convention every 20 years to fix problems and make the Constitution relevant to the times.

It was the product of duplicitous framers and close allies, scheming to cut the best deals for themselves, democracy never considered.

Expanding America from sea to shining sea followed, the beginning of its global imperial project, today threatening world peace and humanity’s survival.

The supreme law of the land deters no president or sitting government from doing what they please, inventing reasons as justification. We the people are entirely left out.

Powerful interests control things, usurping coup d’etat authority, duopoly power with two right wings in charge.

Elections are farcical when held, mocking legitimacy, an illusory veneer of democracy. America’s sham system disregards the real thing. The framers designed it this way.

“We the People of the United States,” the constitution’s opening words, are meaningless window dressing. Free-wheeling/self-serving politicians operate in their own self-interest. Popular needs and concerns don’t matter.

America’s deplorable state reflects Franklin’s warning about “(a) republic, if you can keep it.” He understood significant challenges ahead, likely never imagining how bad things would get.

Tyranny today is on a slippery slope toward becoming full-blown, fundamental freedoms disappearing.

War on humanity rages, survival perhaps threatened like never before. Celebratory weekend activities distract from what’s most important.

America’s shameful state should focus attention on how to change things. Otherwise we’re all doomed.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Rights groups call for action on anti-Muslim violence in Burma

by Caleb Quinley-5th July 2016

NINETEEN non-governmental organizations have come together to sign a joint statement calling on the Burmese government to take steps to combat hate speech, reject incitements of violence and commence detailed investigations into recent religiously motivated attacks.

“The people of Myanmar elected the National League for Democracy on the basis of its campaign to uphold rule of law and human rights for all,” the statement said. The 19 organizations, consisting of groups from Yangon, Kachin State and the Mandalay Region, “call on the Government of Myanmar to deliver on its promise.”

The statement is a reaction to religiously motivated violence in Burma over the past two weeks, signifying a collective show of support from Burma’s civil society.

On July 1, a Buddhist mob ransacked a mosque in Hpakant, Kachin state. Witnesses say the armed mob of around 100 people stormed a prayer hall, wreaking havoc inside the building before burning it to the mosque to the ground.

“The government needs to roll out a concerted effort to protect religious freedom and prevent future outbreaks of violence.”

According to local news agencies, security forces were unable to contain the situation.

“The Myanmar government must make it clear that anti-Muslim violence and vitriol will not be tolerated. Authorities have a responsibility to fully investigate these attacks and bring to justice those involved. 

Anything short of that would represent a failure to protect a vulnerable minority community,” said Charles Santiago, Chairperson for ASEAN Parliament for Human Rights (APHR) and acting member of the Malaysian Parliament.

SEE ALSO: One year on from Rohingya boat crisis: Human rights groups call for action

This is the second occurrence of violence where mobs have attacked mosques and Muslims in Burma within two weeks.

On June 23, a crowd targeted a mosque in a Waw Township, in Bago Region when a dispute on Facebook escalated to destructive proportions.

Muslims in the area fled to a nearby police station in hopes of finding protection and shelter from the violent masses outside. Almost two weeks on, no one has been held responsible and no arrests have been made.

“These acts of religious extremism aren’t spontaneous,” said Matthew Smith, chief executive officer at Fortify Rights. “The government needs to roll out a concerted effort to protect religious freedom and prevent future outbreaks of violence. It’s the duty of everyone in Myanmar to ensure that communities of all faiths can practice their religion with freedom from fear.”

Radical Buddhist monks shout slogans during a protest rally in Yangon last year. Pic: AP.

Once again, the violence stems from conflicting religious groups with nationalistic mentalities fuelling the persecution of Muslim minority communities.

Aggression towards Muslims in Burma is not a new occurrence.

The predominantly Buddhist state has a history of ultra-nationalism and communal tensions between the two religious groups. Over the years there has been frequent reports of intermittent and even state-sponsored violence towards Muslim minorities throughout the country.

Tensions peaked in 2012, leading to a series of riots that forced over 100,000 Muslim Rohingya to escape the escalating violence occurring in their western home of Rakhine State.

“It’s time for the government to stand up for religious minorities and take action against those perpetrating attacks.”

“These attacks demonstrate the need for the Myanmar government to work much harder to address anti-Muslim sentiment, which is rising rapidly throughout the country. The most recent acts of violence are not isolated incidents. They are just the latest in a series of disturbing developments fed by the hate speech of groups like Ma Ba Tha,” said APHR Vice Chair Eva Kusuma Sundari, a member of the Indonesian House of Representatives, referring to the Buddhist monk-led Association for the Protection of Race and Religion.

SEE ALSO: Why we need to worry about Burma’s extremist Ma Ba Tha monks

Discrimination against the Rohingya is rampant in Burma, as the government denies the group citizenship and basic human rights. It has also declined to even acknowledge the term “Rohingya”, alternately using the word “Bengali” referencing Bangladesh, from where many claim the group originates.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the right to freedom of religion. Thus, states are responsible to ensure the rights of minority groups under international law.

“Myanmar’s human rights obligations require the authorities to protect at-risk religious groups,” said Shaivalini Parmar, Burma program officer at Civil Rights Defenders. “It’s time for the government to stand up for religious minorities and take action against those perpetrating attacks.”

Toronto Pride parade brings fun tinged with sorrow over Orlando

People take part in the annual Pride parade in Toronto. (Nathan Denette / The Canadian Press)-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau waves a rainbow-coloured Canadian flag as he marches in the annual Pride parade in Toronto on Sunday. (Mark Blinch / The Canadian Press)

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, left, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Toronto Mayor John Tory wave to spectators. (Nathan Denette / The Canadian Press)--Toronto police Chief Mark Saunders, marching in the parade, waves to onlookers. (Mark Blinch / The Canadian Press)

Sunday, Jul. 03, 2016

“Pride is political,” shouted a protester atop the Black Lives Matter float at Sunday’s Pride parade in Toronto, and this year it would have been hard to disagree.

The annual celebration of the LGBTQ community took over a portion of downtown Toronto on Sunday in a rainbow-clad display of defiance just weeks after a homophobic shooting rampage claimed dozens of lives in a gay Orlando nightclub.

Justin Trudeau’s raucously received appearance marked the first time a Canadian prime minister has marched in the parade, a milestone that prompted some to reflect on the progress North American society has made on gay rights in recent years.

Mr. Trudeau said the Florida tragedy is a reminder that “we can’t let hate go by … We have to speak up any time there is intolerance or discrimination.”

This year, the parade’s fun-filled atmosphere vied with moments of poignancy, sorrow and anger, as the historic tension at Pride between politics and partying tilted in favour of the politically minded.

Standing along the parade route, Lance Rawlings said that he felt the Prime Minister’s attendance was a blow against homophobia.

FULL STORY>>>

Doctors warn acne could become resistant to antibiotics

By Lindsay Brown-5 July 2016

There's a warning that if doctors continue to prescribe antibiotics to treat acne over a long time, sufferers could become resistant to it.

It means a strain of so-called "super acne" could develop which would be untreatable by antibiotics.

The official advice is if antibiotics don't work after three months, patients should be referred to a skin specialist.

Delaying treatment could cause scarring.

"It is definitely a concern which I think both patients and doctors need to be aware of," Dr Heather Whitehouse, who specialises in skin complaints, told Newsbeat.

A recent study, released at the British Association of Dermatologists' Annual Conference, found that on average patients were prescribed antibiotics to treat acne for six and a half months before being referred to a skin specialist.

One person was prescribed antibiotics for seven years.

Researcher Dr Alison Layton said: "It could cause the emergence of antibiotic-resistant Propionibacterium acnes - the bacterium implicated in acne - making acne harder to treat in some cases.

"Worryingly, the use of oral antibiotics is also likely to drive resistance in other bacteria, unrelated to acne."

What is acne?

Acne is a very common skin condition characterised by blackheads and whiteheads and pus-filled spots.

It usually starts at puberty and varies in severity from a few spots to a more significant problem that may cause scarring.

A degree of acne affects nearly all people between the ages of 15 and 17.

Image captionLucy says her acne made her into a recluse

For the majority of sufferers it tends to clear up by late teens or early 20s, but it can persist for longer in some people.

Lucy's story

Lucy Arnold developed acne when she was 22.

"My face, my back and my chest were all covered."

Like many sufferers, having acne had a huge effect on Lucy's life.

"It was really hard for me. It turned me into a bit of a recluse. My skin was awful.

"I'd cry taking off my make-up.

"It changed me. I lost a lot of confidence."

Lucy, who's now 25, used to work with children teaching pottery.

"The kids used to ask me what was wrong with my face. That really used to upset and distress me.

"People used to think I was dirty or mucky but it isn't something you can help."

Image captionLucy suffered with acne for three years

Lucy tried several types of antibiotics but none of them worked.

She was desperate and started searching for treatments she'd researched online.

"I tried turmeric capsules, I tried using [certain] products and then using no products, then wheatgrass, a clean eating diet, no gluten and then no dairy.

"I feel like I've tried everything possible over the last few years to try and make a difference to my skin."

So what's the alternative to antibiotics?

"Antibiotics are just one element of what we have on offer to treat acne. There are other options," Dr Whitehouse explains.

"If your acne's milder there are good creams.

"Once the acne is under control then you can stop the antibiotics in tablet form and carry on with creams to maintain that benefit you've seen in the skin.

"The other thing to do is use the cream alongside the tablet antibiotics because that reduces the chance of developing the resistance in the first place.

"We want to be able to continue to use them, and so in order for them to be effective, we have to be responsible for how we're prescribing them.

"There's lots of different types of antibiotics so switching can help."

After three years Lucy was referred to a skin specialist who put her on a strong drug that seems to have worked.

Image captionLucy's skin has now cleared up

Lucy says despite the side-effects, it's been worth it.

"My skin's absolutely beautiful now. The clearest it's ever been."

For help and more information on acne, check out the BBC Radio 1 advice pages.

High Commissioner’s report confirms Sri Lanka has not moved fast enough - USTPAC   03 July 2016 A midterm report by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al-Hussein has confirmed Sri Lanka has not moved fast enough on issues of justice and accountability said the US Tamil Political Action Council, as it outlined a range of measures that must be immediately addressed. "High Commissioner Zeid's constructive oral report confirms USTPAC's observations that the government has not moved fast enough on confidence building measures or transitional justice," said USTPAC President Karunyan Arulanantham.  "Sri Lanka's security forces must return all land to its rightful owners, demilitarize from the Tamil-dominated North and East and undergo serious reform if Sri Lanka is to achieve reconciliation. USTPAC also reiterates High Commissioner Zeid's conclusion that the government must execute a comprehensive plan for transitional justice and launch a concerted public information campaign to explain its efforts to all communities." "Despite Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Samaraweera's statements in Geneva, USTPAC has concerns about the government's determination to fully implement Resolution 30/1,” he added.  “Failure to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act, rejections of international judges, denial without a probe that cluster bombs were used against civilians, and the refusal by military to obey a court order to release the names of those who surrendered at the end of the war  are just a few causes for concern. The government must immediately criminalize war crimes and crimes against humanity. This powerful action would reduce fears that the government aims to sideline justice." "The UNHRC sent a clear message that it expects to see more tangible and transparent action from the government of Sri Lanka in the run-up to March 2017," Dr Arulanantham concluded. "Especially on the 10th anniversary of the Council, Sri Lanka serves as a test of the UNHRC's own ability to maintain attention and translate its pronouncements into real and transformational change. This is a tremendous opportunity to prove the Council's global leadership on human rights and drive sustainable peace in Sri Lanka." See the full press release here.

Is Sri Lanka on the path to reconciliation?

President Sirisena is under pressure to fulfill his post-civil war promises of accountability and justice.

03 Jul 2016

It's been seven years since the civil war in Sri Lanka ended.

The 30-year conflict fell largely along ethnic lines. 

President Maithripala Sirisena has said reconciliation is one of his top priorities, but thousands of ethnic Tamils from the country's north still have not been able to return to their homes.

The government had promised to resettle them by the end of last month.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights gave a report on Sri Lanka's efforts last week.

He said progress has been made, but not quickly enough.

So what's hampering Sri Lanka's efforts to bring reforms and justice?

Presenter: Laura Kyle

Guests:

D M Swaminathan - Sri Lankan Minister of Resettlement

Subramaniam Senthilkumar - British Tamils Forum

Bhavani Fonseka - Senior Researcher at the Centre for Policy Alternatives