Corruption continues: President must reverse the trend

President Sirisena having a friendly discussion with the Ven. Muruthhetuwe Ananda Thera during an Abhayarama Temple ceremony on Wednesday. At this ceremony, the President and Ven. Bellanwila Wimalaratne Thera exchanged strong views regarding corruption allegations.

• Bellanwila prelate bluntly tells Sirisena the people feel let down because of continuing fraud and other misdeeds
• Sirisena responds strongly, assures that all bond issues will be probed and those found guilty punished
• Cabinet reshuffle likely soon; four UNP ministers may face change of portfolios
• Rajapaksa rejects plea by CMs to support SLFP at polls, says Nugegoda rally proof of where the people are

By Our Political Editor-Sunday, January 29, 2017

The many challenges for President Maithripala Sirisena, now in the early days of his third year in office, seem unprecedented if not too burdensome.

Since assuming the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) leadership in 2015, his highest priority has been to reunify the party. That turned out to be a futile exercise. Thus, he urged SLFP Ministers who were summoned on January 3 to be told of his plans for 2017 to publicly “expose” the “misdeeds” of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and members of his family. He began to offer plum jobs to incompetent Rajapaksa loyalists saying they should be separated from the former President before “dealing a hard blow at him.” He offered diplomatic postings to those who were close to Rajapaksa. The reality that every such appointment angered hundreds of his own supporters, and his countrymen, to say the least, was lost on him.

Corruption continues.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

SEXUAL HARASSMENT; NO EXCUSE IS GOOD EXCUSE -

2017-01-30

 Aresearch conducted by Britain’s Trade Union Congress (TUC) reveals that more than half the women say they have been sexually harassed at work and most admit to not reporting it.
  A survey of 1,500 women saw 52% cite the problem and also found a third had been subjected to unwelcome jokes and a quarter experienced unwanted touching. 
  TUC head, Frances O’ Grady said it left women feeling ashamed and frightened. 
  Sexual harassment is one of the most common forms of violence against women. Sexual harassment is defined as receiving any unwanted conduct of a sexual nature including sexual comments, fondling, lewd gestures, jokes, emails, SMSs, pornographic pictures, coercion and more. 

    The Bangalore Mirror, on January 1, 2017, reported that its photojournalists witnessed “A brazen mass molestation of women” in the city’s central business district. The news story was picked up by other media outlets across India. Eyewitness Parikshit Murria told CNN that he saw “a horde of men” molesting girls “in every possible manner.”  
 While a State minister confirmed that females were “harassed”, the allegations were denied by a Police Chief in Bangalore, who suggested that they were concocted by journalists.   Karnakata State Home Minister G. Parameshwara confirmed that the assaults took place, despite what the Police told CNN. However, in an interview with local press he (Minister) placed the blame on the victims, saying “they try to copy the Westerners, not only in their mindset but even in the way they dress...”. “So, some disturbance, some girls are harassed, these kinds of things do happen.”  

   Come on, let’s get real, in India, cows are held sacred… a non-Hindu man was, less than a year ago, beaten to death by mob because they suspected he had consumed cow meat. What hypocrisy! A man is killed for consuming the flesh of a cow, but women can be groped and harassed because of the clothes they wear?   
But what is most surprising is that some women tend to accept these charges made by male chauvinists. At a recent meeting of journalists, a majority of those in attendance seemed to agree that women and the clothes they wear, were responsible for the unwanted attention from men. In our part of the world we see men (farmers) clothed in an ‘amude’ or loin cloth with nary any unwelcome attention drawn toward their almost naked bodies. But a woman in Western attire is deemed a temptress and fair target for lecherous men be they young or old.   

  We, the Asians refer to our countries as our ‘motherland’ - our way of showing how highly we value women. But the sad reality is that we objectify women. Despite living in an era where women as our equals, the reality is many see women as objects. We do not accept the fact that a woman’s body is her own and not a luscious chunk of flesh for men to cast their lustful eyes on.   What is even sadder is when women themselves, do not recognize the fact that they are intelligent beings having the same rights as men to dress in a manner they wish without attracting unwanted attention of the opposite sex, who see their dress as an open license for sexual harassment. 

    A recent survey carried out in our own country reveals 15% of men surveyed in Sri Lanka admitted to having committed rape, 65% of them said they had committed rape more than once, with 40% committing the first rape before the age of 20, and horror of horrors their motivation, in the vast majority of cases was sexual entitlement. Most alarmingly, only 3.2% of those who admitted rape had been arrested and only 2.2% had been jailed. In other words, in 96.5% of rape cases, the rapists had experienced no legal consequences. 
A UN survey on violence against women in Sri Lanka revealed 97% of rapists faced no legal consequences. While parliamentarian Rosy Senanayake revealed in Parliament that only 600 perpetrators of sexual abuse out of 300,000 cases (or 2%) had been remanded.   Media persons - the supposed watchdogs of the nation - have been equally complicit in crimes of harassing female colleagues. According to a survey carried out by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), almost 29% of Sri Lankan female journalists have experienced sexual harassment in their work places.  

   We, Sri Lankans, have a rich 2,500-year-old history and culture. But having an age old culture is as useless as a 3-cent coin if we cannot honour our women; treat them as our equals, recognize them as persons and stop treating them as objects and playthings.  

Yet another garbage judge to make judiciary stink ! Bandarawela womanizer requests WP officers !

(Lanka-e-News- 30.Jan.2017, 10.00AM) By the appointment of yet another ‘stinking’  judge the grace and dignity  of the judiciary which is already tottering is being made to collapse completely  ! The name of this judge is  Piyamantha Fernando the chief magistrate transferred recently from Trincomalee to Bandarawela courts.

He is best known as a worst womanizer .  When he was the judge at Bandarawela court , he had forcibly held the hand of a lady  typist and said , ‘your hand is very soft’. The typist who least expected a judge to behave this disgracefully was shocked, and  had with difficulty withdrawn herself from the grip . She had then reported it to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). 

Piyamantha’s uncontrollable womanizing  nature and sex starved habits became most manifest when he requested women police officers for his security detail .When the senior police officers told him that the police department has no provision to provide women police officers for the security of a magistrate , he had replied , at least to provide women police officers to get over the loneliness of his wife. 

To the dismay and disappointment of this womanizer , the police had told him even to grant that request , there are no provisions.

Sexually frustrated Piyamantha who was infuriated over  the refusal of the police to gratify his ‘itchy –scratchy’ whims and fancies has thereafter borne a deep grudge against the police. Since that day he had been insulting and berating  the police officers openly at every opportunity , based on reports. 

In the circumstances , the pro good governance masses that threw out the Rajapakses lock , stock and barrel for encouraging and mollycoddling all the cads , crooks and the  corrupt during their nefarious decade are in earnest anticipation of a clean up in respect of  the judiciary with a view to punish such rascals  at least under the good governance government , now that an independent judicial service commission has been appointed. 

---------------------------
by     (2017-01-30 04:34:07)

No one in JVP party to earn money - Anura

Jan 30, 2017

Certain media reports have claimed that you own properties in Ireland. Lanka News web Opening his statement on this  JVP leader Anura Dissanayake said , No one in our political party is engaged in politics to earn money. If anyone has such an intention, the doors of the party are not open to them.

So we would like to ask these rumor generators to work on allegations that could at least hold on a few days without making these lame allegations. I would like to challenge these accusers to meet me in public for a media discussion. Rather than writing in assumed names or anonymously in websites or unnamed fb pages, they could prove their case in public.

He went on to add that “ Anyone who could make their case with responsibility could do so. We have never been afraid of accusations in the past. In the future there could be more of such allegations. Only the JVP has been able to protect its political chastity. It is only the JVP that can honestly fight against fraud and corruption. Certain groups in both the UNP and SLFP are trying to prove that the JVP too is in their camp. So we expect these accusations to get worsen in the future. But that is not going to discourage us.

AshWaru Colombo

Port City gazette presented to Parliament

Port City - Pic by Shehan Gunasekara-Tuesday, 31 January 2017

Gazette notifications giving sweeping tax concessions for the Port City and a mixed development project at Slave Island have been presented to Parliament by the Government.  The Port City project, renamed the Colombo International Financial City (CIFC), was restarted by the Government after the signing of a fresh agreement in August. However, the initial exemptions proposed under the Strategic Development Project Act of 2008 under the administration of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2014 expired before they could be presented to Parliament.

The $ 1.3 billion project, expected to be implemented over the next eight years, was adopted as a Strategic Development Project by the Cabinet on a proposal made by Development Strategies and International Trade Minister Malik Samarawickrama.

A new set of exemptions for the Port City was outlined in an Extraordinary Gazette Notification released on 19 September. Under the slew of exemptions, foreigners working for the Chinese company are exempted from Pay As You Earn (PAYE), ports and airport development levy, CESS, Nation Building Tax of 2% and Customs Duty. The new gazette was submitted to Parliament on Friday.  

The provisions of the Inland Revenue Act, No. 10 of 2006 relating to the imposition of income tax on the Project Company on the profit and income generated from the activities from the said Project shall not apply for the period of twenty five (25) years (“Tax Exemption Period”), the gazette said.

“The said Tax Exemption Period shall commence from the year in which the Project Company makes taxable profit or six (06) years after commencement of construction of the project, whichever occurs earlier,” it added. The gazette is likely to be re-issued ahead of the Government presenting it before parliament for approval.

The project tripartite agreement was signed by the Megapolis and Western Development Ministry, Urban Development Authority and the China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC). The Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA), which was a party to the previous agreement made under former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Government was exempted from the new version as the Port City would now be part of the new Government’s larger Megapolis project.

The Tata mixed development project in Slave Island is also reported to have been given similar concessions.

CHEC, which is a subsidiary of the Chinese-State run China Communications and Construction Company (CCCC), has also carried out other large scale construction projects in Sri Lanka, including the Hambantota port and Sooriyawewa cricket stadium. 

Lankan nabbed with foreign currency worth Rs. 111mn at BIA

2017-01-30

A 42-year-old Sri Lankan man was arrested by the Customs at the Bandaranayaike International Airport (BIA) while attempting to smuggle foreign currency worth Rs.111 million to Dubai last evening.

The Suspect who is a resident of Mount Lavinia was a passenger of UL 225 flight bound to Dubai, UAE.

Currencies in US dollar, Euro, Swiss Francs, Saudi Riyal, Dirham, Qatar Riyal and Sterling Pound in his possession had been seized.

Superintend of Customs at BIA, D. Bopege, who made the arrest conducts further investigation. (Chathuranga Paradeep and TKG Kapila)

Saudi air attacks in Yemen may amount to war crimes, says UN

At least 292 civilians were killed in 10 targets studied by UN, which found no evidence that eight of the attacks had 'legitimate military objectives'

Smoke rises in Sanaa after a Saudi coalition air attack (Reuters)

Monday 30 January 2017

A UN investigation of 10 air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen has concluded that most of the attacks did not involve legitimate military targets and may amount to war crimes, according to a report obtained by AFP on Monday.

A UN panel of experts also said in the report that Yemen's Houthi rebels had tortured and ill-treated detainees in violations that could also amount to war crimes.

The panel investigated 10 air strikes between March and October last year that killed at least 292 civilians, including at least 100 women and children. 

"In 8 of the 10 investigations, the panel found no evidence that the air strikes had targeted legitimate military objectives," said the report sent to the Security Council on Friday.

"For all 10 investigations, the panel considers it almost certain that the coalition did not meet international humanitarian law requirements of proportionality and precautions in attack."

"The panel considers that some of the attacks may amount to war crimes."

The Saudi-led coalition launched its air campaign in Yemen in March 2015 to support Yemen's president, Abd Rabbuh Hadi, and push back the rebels who seized Sanaa and other parts of the country.

The panel said the violations by the Saudi-led air campaign "are sufficiently widespread to reflect either an ineffective targeting process or a broader policy of attrition against civilian infrastructure".

Warning to allies

About 10,000 civilians have died in the war, according to UN officials, who rank the humanitarian crisis in Yemen as among the world's worst.

The bombing campaign "while devastating to Yemeni infrastructure and civilians, has failed to dent the political will of the Houthi-Saleh alliance to continue the conflict," the report said.

The Houthis are allied with forces loyal to Yemen's former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, who is on a UN sanctions blacklist.

The panel warned that those supporting the coalition may also face UN sanctions.

Led by Saudi Arabia, the coalition includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates with some support from Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Sudan.

The United States is offering support to logistical and intelligence activities, but the report said officers from Britain, France and Malaysia were also working at the coalition's Riyadh headquarters.

"All coalition states and their allies also have an obligation to take appropriate measure to ensure respect for international humanitarian law by the coalition," said the experts.

Saudi Arabia has rejected accusations of deliberately targeting civilians in Yemen and charges that Iran is arming the Houthis to expand its influence in the region, a claim denied by Tehran.

The experts said they had "not seen sufficient evidence to confirm any direct large-scale supply of arms" from Iran to the Houthis, but that there were "indications" that Iran-made anti-tank guided weapons were supplied to the rebels.

Obama rejects comparison between Trump’s immigration policy and his own, encourages protests

Then-President Barack Obama holds a year-end news conference in Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2016. SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

By Juliet Eilperin January 30 at 2:22 PM

Former president Barack Obama rejected the idea Monday that President Trump based his immigration executive order on a policy adopted by his own administration, and he endorsed the protests that have been taking place across the country in response to the new restrictions.

Trump has said that his move to ban the entry of migrants from seven Muslim-majority countries into the United States, and to suspend temporarily the admission of refugees, was based in part on a decision in 2011 by then-President Obama to ban the admission of Iraqis to the country after evidence surfaced that two Iraqis seeking resettlement had been linked to terrorist activity in their homeland. The Obama and Trump administrations also identified the same seven countries as harboring terrorism threats.

Former Obama administration officials have denied that there was ever a halt to the awarding of visas to Iraqis, though the processing of these applications slowed after they were subject to more intense scrutiny.

[Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011]

Obama, who has remained publicly silent about his successor since leaving office 10 days ago, pledged before leaving office to only speak about Trump's policy moves “where I think our core values may be at stake.” On Monday, his spokesman Kevin Lewis said in a statement, “With regard to comparisons to President Obama’s foreign policy decisions, as we’ve heard before, the President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.”

Alluding to the widespread protests taking place in major airports and cities in response to the new immigration policy, Lewis said that Obama “is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country.”

Hundreds of protesters gathered at the arrivals gate of Washington Dulles International Airport to push back against President Trump's executive order that targeted citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries. A federal judge in New York blocked deportations nationwide late Saturday of those detained on entry to the United States. (McKenna Ewen/The Washington Post)

“In his final official speech as President, he spoke about the important role of citizen and how all Americans have a responsibility to be the guardians of our democracy — not just during an election but every day,” Lewis said. “Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.”

Juliet Eilperin is The Washington Post's senior national affairs correspondent, covering how the new administration is transforming a range of U.S. policies and the federal government itself. She is the author of two books—one on sharks, and another on Congress, not to be confused with each other—and has worked for the Post since 1998.

Follow @eilperin

Sorry, Mr. President: The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar to Your Immigration Ban

BY JON FINER-JANUARY 30, 2017

There are so many reasons to detest the Donald Trump administration’s executive order on “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” that it’s hard to know where to start.
Others have already argued eloquently about its cruelty in singling out the most vulnerable in society; its strategic folly in insulting countries and individuals the United States needs to help it fight terrorism (the ostensible purpose of the order in the first place); its cynical incoherence in using the September 11 attacks as a rationale and then exempting the attackers’ countries of origin; its ham-handed implementation and ever-shifting explanations for how, and to whom, it applies; and, thankfully, its legal vulnerability on a slew of soon-to-be-litigated grounds, including that it may violate the Establishment and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

In light of all that, and particular in light of the new White House’s acknowledged aversion to facts, it may seem like a minor point that President Donald Trump and his advisors, in seeking to justify and normalize the executive order, have made a series of false or misleading claims about steps taken five years earlier by the Barack Obama administration. In case you missed it, a statement from the president published Sunday afternoon read:

“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”

Leaving aside the unusual nature of team Trump looking to his predecessors’ policies for cover, it seems worth pointing out this statement obscures at least five enormous differences between the executive order the White House issued on Friday and what the Obama administration did.

1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.

2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.

4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli. This is not just bad policymaking practice, it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.

5. Far stronger vetting today: Much has been made of Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration’s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.

*Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.

Bottom line: No immigration vetting system is perfect, no matter how “extreme.” President Obama often said that his highest priority was keeping Americans safe. In keeping with America’s tradition and ideals, he also worked to establish a vetting system that worked more fairly and efficiently, particularly for refugees who are, by definition, in harm’s way. President Trump should defend his approach on the merits, if he can. He should not compare it to his predecessor’s.
This post has been updated.

Subscribe to FP Premium for 20% off now!

Photo credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Quebec mosque attack suspect liked Trump, Israeli army, French far-right

Ali Abunimah-30 January 2017
A screenshot from Bissonnette’s Facebook page shows he “liked” the official account of the Israeli army.

This post is being updated as new information is available.

Social media postings by the suspect in the shooting attack that killed six persons and injured 19 at a Quebec City mosque on Sunday evening indicate he was a fan of US President Donald Trump, French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, the Israeli army and other far-right groups.

Alexandre Bissonnette, 27, was arrested as a suspect in the slayings several miles from the mosque, after he called police himself, the newspaper Le Soleil reported.

Quebec mosque attack suspect liked Trump.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Pakistan orders house arrest for alleged brain of 2008 Mumbai attacks

Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, chief of the banned Islamic charity Jamat-ud-Dawa, looks over the crowed as they end a ''Kashmir Caravan'' from Lahore with a protest in Islamabad, Pakistan July 20, 2016. REUTERS/Caren Firouz/Files

By Mehreen Zahra-Malik and Mubashar Bukhari | ISLAMABAD/LAHORE-Tue Jan 31, 2017

Pakistan on Monday ordered Hafiz Saeed, accused by the United States and India of masterminding the 2008 attacks on the Indian financial capital Mumbai that killed 166 people, to be placed under house arrest.

The move came after years of pressure and could ease recently escalating tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours. Saeed's continued freedom has long infuriated Islamabad's arch-foe India.

The United States has offered $10 million for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Saeed, who heads the Muslim charity Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD). Washington says JuD is a front for the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

"A large police team arrived (at JuD headquarters) and told us that Hafiz Saeed would be placed under house arrest," Nadeem Awan, a spokesman for the group based in the eastern city of Lahore, told Reuters.

An Interior Ministry source confirmed Saeed and the other men "are under house arrest" and on the exit control list, meaning they could not leave the country. India's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

It was unclear why Pakistan decided to act now. A senior Pakistani defence ministry official said Islamabad had not heard anything from the new administration of U.S. President Donald Trump but had been feeling U.S. pressure on the issue.

"Trump is taking hard decisions against Muslim countries, there is open talk of actions against Pakistan also. So yes, this was a consideration," said the official.

Other government officials have said recently that a broader diplomatic campaign - pushed by India - to isolate Pakistan over its failure to go after some Islamist groups has taken a toll, even involving pressure from longtime ally China.

RAMPAGE IN MUMBAI

The Mumbai attacks in 2008 brought Pakistan and India to the brink of war after 10 gunmen killed commuters, foreigners and some of India's wealthy elite in a rampage that included attacks on two luxury hotels, a Jewish centre and a train station.

India accused Pakistan of sponsoring the attack through LeT, which Saeed founded in the 1990s. 

Pakistan has denied any state involvement and Saeed - who has distanced himself from LeT - has said repeatedly he was not responsible.

Saeed was put under house arrest after the Mumbai attack but was released about six month later in June 2009.

Awan said Islamabad had been under pressure from the United States to take action against Saeed or face sanctions. "This government has buckled under the pressure," he said.

The Punjab provincial government said Saeed and four other men were in "protective custody" because they violated a U.N. Security Council resolution passed after the Mumbai attacks.

Interior Ministry documents seen by Reuters named Saeed and four other men as members of JuD and Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation (FiF), a charity wing of JuD headed by Saeed.

One document said the government believed FiF was "acting in a manner that may be concerned in terrorism".

PROSECUTIONS RARE

Previous Pakistani announcements of action against anti-India militant groups have rarely led to serious punishments for them.

Western countries have for decades accused Pakistan of harbouring Islamist militant groups and using them as proxies against bigger neighbour India, with whom it has fought three wars since independence. Islamabad denies having such a policy.

In recent months, Saeed has been holding regular press conferences about the security crackdown in Indian-controlled Kashmir, trying to highlight alleged civil rights violations against the mainly Muslim population there.

He told Reuters last month that he had no fear of arrest despite the appointment of a new army chief and a new head of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency.

Successive Pakistani governments have vowed to crack down against militant groups but lack of action against Saeed has often been seized on by India as proof that Islamabad was dragging its feet on tackling banned outfits.

(Writing by Drazen Jorgic; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

Balochistan: Stuffed Birds Could Never Fly

by Ali Sukhanver-Jan 30, 2017

( January 30, 2017, Islamabad, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is simply ‘the Return of a Native’ but for some of the people the news of surrender of Ferrari commander Lal Din Bugti of Balochistan before security forces might be ‘shocking news’. According to media reports, Lal Din Bugti along with six associates surrendered on 28th January in Quetta and pledged to fight for defence of the country till the last moment of his life. According to security sources, the separatist commander and his colleagues laid down arms in front of Mir Attaullah Kalpor Bugti and FC officer Col Awais. The government sources told media that these Ferrari commanders were involved in anti-state activities including blowing up gas pipelines and other heinous crimes. Now at the call of their conscience, they are back to the lap of their motherland Pakistan. I think a sinner seeking for forgiveness must always be welcomed and honoured. The days are not in far future when all Ferrari commanders who have been playing in the hands of the Indian agencies since long would realize that their motherland is waiting for them with tearful eyes.

For the last many years Indian agents are trying their best to misguide the people of Balochistan that the government of Pakistan is exploiting the natural resources of Balochistan and nothing is being done for the betterment of the people of Balochistan. This blame game is the very foundation of all so-called separatist movements in Balochistan patronized by the Indian agencies. India will have to search for some other blame or allegation to malign Pakistan after the completion of CPEC as this project would not only reduce unemployment and poverty but also become a source of economic stability in Balochistan. With the help of propaganda tools our friends in India are trying to sow the seed of hatred in the hearts of the people of Balochistan but they should keep in mind that truth is truth though most of the time it is bitter. No war could be won on the basis of propaganda. Instead of spreading hatred against CPEC, India must come forward with open eyes and open arms and take some advantage from the CPEC by supporting it. With the help of propaganda and disinformation, the marvelous CPEC project cannot be maligned anymore. There is always a very clear difference between truth and propaganda. The people of Balochistan are very well aware of this difference.

Most of the impartial analysts are of the opinion that the CPEC project is going to be a game-changer not only for Pakistan but for the whole of region. Unfortunately some so-called analysts, who certainly feel pride in working as mouth-piece of others, are trying to misguide people. A few weeks back, a much esteemed newspaper of India ‘the Indian Express’ published an article with the same misguiding contents. The title of the article was ‘Corridor of Uncertainty’. The author of this article tried all his best to present that picture of Pakistan, of the Security Forces of Pakistan, of the people of Pakistan and of the CPEC which is certainly not corresponding to the reality. He says, “The only big thing going for an isolated Pakistan is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Unable to tackle with its internal security problems — for which it now wrongly blames India — it prefers focusing on the good times the world thinks the Chinese investment of $46 billion will bring.” In short the CPEC project has become a pain in the neck for the ‘well-wishers’ of Pakistan.

In another article ‘CPEC is not a holy Cow’ the author says, ‘Pakistan faces many serious problems; and among them is the status and invulnerability of holy cows, and people who are above the Pakistani laws. Bitter fact is growth in number of holy cows, accumulation of wealth and power they possess.’ He further says, ‘I am a citizen of State of Jammu and Kashmir and my loyalty is with State and its people. I don’t have to be loyal to neighbours of Jammu and Kashmir or to those who occupy us. The CPEC runs without permission through our land, Gilgit Biltistan which is part of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir. My fear is despite much hype and attraction, CPEC will prove to be a white elephant for Pakistan; and it could be Pakistan’s Waterloo.’ This article is a mixture of confusions and misunderstandings. Though the writer has very passionately rather emotionally tried to plead the ‘stuffed’ point of view but in his heat and haste, he contradicted his own narrated arguments. He admits that ‘Gilgit Biltistan is part of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir’. It means he has accepted the fact that the present day Gilgit Biltistan has nothing to do with Jammu and Kashmir as it once used to be a part of Jammu Kashmir. Secondly on one hand he says, ‘my loyalty is with State and its people, I don’t have to be loyal to neighbours of Jammu and Kashmir’ but at the same time he expresses his worries about Pakistan that ‘CPEC will prove to be a white elephant for Pakistan.’ It seems that the writer is not very much clear about the point of view he has planned to express. Usually one has to face this situation of confusion when one is presenting some other’s point of view. Speaking for others could be good at times but becoming the mouth-piece of someone already with bad repute is never wise. The stuffed birds could never fly.

How to Set and Adjust the Spam Filter in Microsoft Outlook 2013

Find the optimum level of protection for yourself and your mailbox.

Jan-28-2017 21:30

(SALEM, Ore.) - Protecting yourself from junk mail is not as easy as you might think. If you set the protection level too low, you risk allowing potentially harmful messages, some of them harboring viruses and other malware, into your inbox.

If you make the settings too stringent, you could find that legitimate emails are being flagged as spam and sent to the junk mail folder. That may be why Microsoft offers a number of junk mail settings in its latest version of the popular Outlook platform. Microsoft Outlook 2013 allows users to tweak their junk mail settings and optimize them as they see fit. That makes it easier to keep spam out while allowing legitimate messages through.

Changing your level of junk mail protection in Microsoft Outlook 2013 is easy and painless. You can experiment with various settings until you find the optimum level of protection for yourself and your mailbox. To get started, just use these simple steps.

• Open Microsoft Outlook 2013 and go to the Home tab.
• Choose the Delete group and click Junk. Choose Junk Email Options.
• Go to the Options tab and select the level of protection you want.
• No automatic filtering - choose this setting if you want to see every message and decide for yourself which ones are spam. This option essentially turns off junk mail filtering. Even with the filtering off, however, Microsoft Outlook still evaluates each incoming message based on domain name and compares it against your blocked senders list.
• Low - this is a good option if you receive few junk mail messages. When the low setting is selected, only the most obvious junk mail messages will be filtered out.
• High - the high setting is a good choice for people who receive a lot of junk mail messages but want to make sure that mail from your safe senders list makes it through. It is a good idea to periodically review messages in your junk mail folder when using the high setting. Legitimate emails could be erroneously flagged as junk mail.
• Safe Lists Only - this is the most restrictive junk mail filtering option. When you choose this option, the only messages that will make it through to your inbox are those on your safe senders list. All other messages will be sent to the junk mail folder.

You can also tell Microsoft Outlook 2013 to delete junk mail messages instead of shifting them to the junk mail folder. You should only turn this option on if you are absolutely certain that your junk mail settings are correct. To delete junk mail messages automatically, just follow these steps.

• Open Microsoft Outlook and go to the Home tab. Click the Delete group and choose Junk. Click Junk Email Options.
• Go to the Options tab and select Permanently delete suspected junk email instead of moving it to the junk email folder check box.

Once this option is selected, all junk mail will be deleted. Unlike messages you delete on your own, these automatically flagged messages will not show up in your Deleted Items folder.

Source: Salem-News.com Special Features Dept.

Ivory Coast officials refuse to explain why two gay men were jailed

Acitivists say if indecency law was applied it would be first known instance of it being used to jail gay people

 Arthur, Malika, David and Michel at the headquarters of Alternative Côte d’Ivoire, an NGO defending LGBT rights in Abidjan. Photograph: Sia Kambou/AFP/Getty

Robbie Corey-Boulet in Sassandra, Ivory Coast-Thursday 26 January 2017

Authorities in the Ivory Coast have refused to explain why two gay men were arrested and jailed in a country that does not criminalise same-sex acts, and is widely regarded as a beacon of tolerance for sexual minorities.

Yann, 31, and Abdoul, 19, are openly gay but deny any romantic relationship. They were arrested in October in a village in southwestern Ivory Coast, apparently for “public indecency”.

Though prosecutors have declined to confirm the charge against them, activists say if the indecency law was used it would be the first known instance of the provision being used to jail gay people in the country.

Graeme Reid, director of the LGBT rights programme at Human Rights Watch, said: “A vague law, arbitrary arrests and an unexplained conviction: this is completely contrary to the rule of law.

“The government needs to come clean and offer an explanation to these two young men who have spent three months in jail for no apparent reason.”

In an interview at the Sassandra prison two weeks before their release on Wednesday, Yann said the case had upended his life and prevented him from caring for his elderly mother.

“I am the only son of my mother. My father is dead, so it’s me who takes care of her. But because of my nature, I am stuck here and I can’t take care of her,” he said.

“We were convicted in an unjust manner. If there is no law that that condemns it, I don’t understand how we could have been convicted.”

The case highlights the limited geographic reach of many gay rights groups in the region. In Ivory Coast and neighbouring countries, most activism takes place in major cities and there is often little contact with more remote areas.

In Cameroon, where activists have long documented the government’s rigorous application of its anti-gay law, local groups still have only a faint idea of what goes on outside Douala and Yaoundé.

This divide is reinforced by the fact that sexual minorities in rural areas can feel alienated by their urban counterparts’ use of western campaign tactics and terminology, such as the term LGBT.

News of the Sassandra conviction only reached activists in Abidjan, Ivory Coast’s largest city and commercial centre, after a local press agency ran a story about it in November. By that point, the conviction had already been handed down.

By that time, Yann and Abdoul, who had no lawyer at the trial, had decided to forgo an appeal, fearing the process would extend well beyond their three-month sentence.

 Abidjan, Ivory Coast. Many same-sex rights groups are located in the country’s cities. Photograph: Alamy

Local activists, who have limited funding, could afford to make the eight-hour road trip to Sassandra only once during the men’s three-month incarceration, meaning the pair were largely left to fend for themselves in the prison system.

During the interview two weeks ago, guards blocked a reporter from entering Sassandra prison, and Yann and Abdoul said they were crammed into small cells with 80 other inmates. A tally on a chalkboard near the prison entrance said 485 inmates were at the facility, well over its official capacity of 300.

Now that they have been released, the pair plan to go to Abidjan to try to rebuild their lives. But while the city is often viewed by gay west Africans as a relative haven, with an impressive network of gay bars and drag shows, security is hardly guaranteed.

There is no legal protection for sexual minorities, and incidents of discrimination including physical assaults are common, activists say.

Last year, several gay men were beaten and forced to leave their homes after the US embassy in Abidjan posted a photo of them signing a condolence book for victims of the nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida.

ADO Jr, president of Lesbian Life Association, a local group closely following the case, said the Sassandra incident had also receivedsensationalist coverage in Ivorian newspapers, potentially endangering Yann and Abdoul.

One article, in the Soir Info, contained fabricated quotes purportedly from the two men that they had sex in public.

“This case caused a lot of buzz here,” ADO Jr said, “so they might feel they need to leave the country.”