The title is suggestive, hopeful and – possibly – self-fulfilling.
Hashtag: Gaza will become a better place is the first play from the Bozour Culture and Arts (bozour translates to “seeds”) theater group. It is a play about how Gaza has become a place from where young people want – desperately – to leave and are willing to risk drowning at sea to do so.
Ultimately, however, the play suggests that there is reason to stay.
That it is written, produced and directed by Bozour’s three women theater directors is arguably an indication the hopeful title is more than wishful thinking.
Bozour is Gaza’s women-led theater group. Its directors, Wissam El-Dirawie, Manal Barakat and Ola Salem Deeb, wanted to open such a company, they said, to provide greater opportunities for women in performing arts.
“We have worked in this field for a long time now,” said El-Dirawie. “I think it’s time there is something dedicated to women.”
The 40-minute play is Bozour’s first production; the company was only established in 2016. It has been staged at the Al-Aqsa Sports Club in the refugee camp of the central Gaza Strip town of Nuseirat since October and the cast is drawn from the youth of the camp.
Reaching the children of the camps
There is little mistaking the enthusiasm of the young actors, whose ages range between 10 and 17.
“I wanted to join Bozour for a long time,” said Nisma Louz, 17, who plays the role of a fisherman’s daughter in Hashtag: Gaza will become a better place. It is an experience that has taught her much about acting, she said.
“We’ve learned new techniques, especially how to interact with our audience, using our body movements,” she told The Electronic Intifada after a recent performance.
The idea for the play came after the three directors traveled the coastal strip, spending time in marginalized communities and refugee camps.
“We contacted local UNRWA schools and met with students and their families,” said El-Dirawie. “It was in those sessions,” at schools of the UN agency for Palestine refugees, “that we realized how frustrated schoolchildren are with the current conditions in Gaza.”
The play received some funding from the Palestinian Performing Arts Network, but is only the first stage of what the women behind Bozour hope to be several projects going forward.
Bozour was founded as a nongovernmental organization and its three directors hope it can fulfil a variety of functions, in addition to producing theater.
“We plan to launch another program, called storytelling for local women,” El-Dirawie said. “We are planning to reach women in remote, marginalized Gaza areas, where women’s roles are confined to household errands, unfortunately.”
The idea, she added, is to bring women together to talk to each other about their experiences and from there to “select the best [story] and turn it into a theatrical performance.”
The group is also hoping to launch a training program for UNRWA schoolchildren focused on animation, said Barakat, who has experience in this field.
Collecting testimonies
The three directors decided to create the group in 2014 after the last major Israeli aggression on Gaza.
“We had collected women’s stories from the 2014 war and we wanted to present them to the outside world,” said Barakat. Their attempts to go to Ramallah in the occupied West Bank foundered, however, when Israel refused to grant travel permits. It was then they decided to create their own organization in Gaza.
The move could prove groundbreaking, said Yusri Abdallah, deputy secretary-general of the Palestinian Union of Artists in Gaza.
“I am very proud of what they have achieved. Women’s drama has been limited in Gaza over the past 15 years,” Abdallah told The Electronic Intifada.
A young actor performs before a rapt audience at the Al Aqsa Spots Club in Nuseirat refugee camp.Mohammed Asad
But there are limits to what subjects they can broach, acknowledged Deeb, who said the group had to respect Gaza’s conservative and religious norms.
“We cannot touch themes that have something to do with sexuality and romantic relationships, for example. Our message remains educational and instructive and we always make sure to continue and not to argue. We have no choice.”
Abdallah said he hoped the example of Bozour would inspire other female performers in Gaza – he said there were currently some 20 women directors and 40 actresses – and suggested there might be a window of opportunity right now.
“When Hamas took over Gaza in 2007, artists here faced many restrictions. Actresses were compelled to wear headscarves, for instance. Over the past three years, there has been some easing of those restrictions. The Hamas-run Al-Aqsa TV itself has produced a number of series involving actresses.”
Combined with this, Abdallah said he hoped reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah will also lead to a thawing of restrictions in the cultural sphere. Certainly, the young audience at the Al-Aqsa Sports Club professed themselves happily entertained by Hashtag: Gaza will become a better place.
“Fazeea, Fazeea [fabulous, fabulous],” said Abdullah Abu Maraheel, 12, copying the manner in which one of the actresses had used the word on stage.
Rami Almeghari is a journalist and university lecturer based in the Gaza Strip.
Jenifer Lewis the 60-year-old singer, actress and activist, who lived with undiagnosed bipolar disorder and a sex addiction through her 20s says, “I don’t hate him.I feel sorry for him because I know what mental illness is.On top of his mental illness, he is a sociopath. They don’t have feelings”, (brut.footage:thegrio). This is in reference to the American President Donald Trump.
Sociopathic condition in adults is said to be a lack of empathy, a lack of remorse, irritability and an inability to engage in close relationships, along with continued rule breaking. Individuals also may display odd behaviours and experience distorted and paranoid thinking. (Excerpted from Encyclopaedia Britannica).
An increasing number of Americans are of the opinion that Trump is not only making a mess of the United States locally but, also, endangering its security and goodwill internationally.Unfortunately, for the American people they are witnessing an unexpected litany of blunders, cover ups and all the wrong things.
Trump Blunders
Trump undermined international cooperation on climate change — and America’s credibility on the world stage — out of mindless spite by opting out of the Paris agreement, fired the director of the FBI for failing to demonstrate personal loyalty to him, over Twitter abandoned an alliance with a long time Middle East ally– The State of Qatar, praised Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte for his policy of sanctioning the extrajudicial killings of thousands of suspected drug dealers and users, used his Executive authority over banning thousands of Muslim immigrants creating chaos at airports all across America and the world, hired Michael Flynn as national security adviser, a manwho was later charged and pleaded guilty for lying to the FBI on the Russian investigation, baselessly accused his predecessor Obama of illegally wiretapping his phones and the list continues. (For a detailed list of Trump blunders see: All the Terrifying Things That Donald Trump Did Lately by Eric Levitz).
Sociopathic Condition
Individuals subjected to certain mental phenomenon may display odd behaviours and experience distorted and paranoid thinking. As to whether the above and many others not listed here has any bearing on Trump’s mental condition is a diagnosis that only a Psychiatrist could determine.However, his latest decision to recognise Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, seem to weigh much on the likelihood of a sociopathic condition.Again, subject to psychiatric expert opinion.When one sees the definition given above of a sociopath – lack of empathy, a lack of remorse, continued rule breaking – a pattern may be identified in Trump’s behaviour.Let’s see some more facts.
The Trump decision is an infringement of several UN resolutions.United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 298, adopted on 25 September 1971 confirmed in “the clearest possible terms” that all actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem, such as land confiscation, were illegal. Later that year, UN Resolution 478, which was adopted on August 20, 1980, called on all states “that have established diplomatic missions” in Jerusalem to withdraw them from the city.Just two out more than 200 United Nations Resolutions against Israel.
Special UNSC Meeting
Eight (France, Bolivia, Egypt, Italy, Senegal, Sweden, Britain and Uruguay) of the fifteen-member UN Security Council had called for an urgent special meeting on Friday (8th) to discuss the unilateral decision taken by Washington recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.The outcome of the meeting was that the United States found itself isolated at the Security Council meeting.
“The status of Jerusalem must be determined through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians leading to a final status agreement,” the five European nations said in a statement at the end of the meeting. The statement also said, that until that occurs, the EU will not recognize any sovereignty over Jerusalem. The European Union “has a clear and united position: we believe that the only realistic solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine is based on two States, and with Jerusalem as the capital of both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine,” the statement said, indicating that until that occurs, the EU will not recognize any sovereignty over Jerusalem.
Three of the women accusing President Trump of sexual misconduct speak out again, in hopes a new "environment" will yield change.(Joyce Koh/The Washington Post) By Philip BumpDecember 12 at 9:36 AM This article has been updated.
President Trump is frustrated. He sees the 2016 election as having vindicated him on any number of things: his often-acidic politics, his disparagement of traditional campaign tactics, his rejection of the media’s correctives, his decision not to release his tax returns.
In the same vein as that last item, he sees it as having rendered unimportant the allegations that arose about his misconduct with women. He denied the stories outright and without nuance, and only he and the women know what actually happened. But he clearly believes that, now that he’s president, the subject should be tabled indefinitely.
The White House said as much in a statement on Monday. The accusations were “addressed at length” during the campaign, and “the American people voiced their judgment by delivering a decisive victory.” The decisiveness of that victory aside, that’s the argument, one that press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders reiterated during the afternoon press briefing.
The president says he's "very happy" sexual misconduct by powerful men is being "exposed." He denies all of the allegations against him.(Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)
The statement also included a dramatic bit of exculpation. The claims of Trump’s accusers were “false” and “totally disputed in most cases by eyewitness accounts.” The falsity had been asserted by the White House before, but this claim that the accusations had been disputed by eyewitness accounts was new.
Sanders was asked about that claim, too.
“In terms of the specific eyewitness accounts,” she said on Monday afternoon, “there have been multiple reports, and I’d be happy to provide them to you after the briefing has completed.”
In the interests of ensuring that the president is exonerated in the face of debunked accusations, we below have listed the women who’ve accused Trump of inappropriate conduct (as compiled by The Post’s Meg Kelly) and all of the eyewitnesses who’ve been presented by the White House to prove their stories wrong.
Kristin Anderson. Claims Trump touched her clothed genitals at a nightclub. Two people corroborated having heard the story. Eyewitness rebuttal: None presented by the White House.
Speaking to Washington Post reporter Karen Tumulty via a telephone earpiece, Kristin Anderson recalls Donald Trump groping her.(Alice Li, Brian Young/The Washington Post)
Rachel Crooks. Claims Trump kissed her on the mouth against her will. Two people corroborated having heard the story. Eyewitness rebuttal: None presented by the White House.
Jessica Drake. Claims Trump kissed her against her will. Eyewitness rebuttal: None presented by the White House.
Jill Harth. Claims Trump aggressively groped her. One person corroborated having heard the story. Eyewitness rebuttal: None presented by the White House.
Cathy Heller. Claims Trump kissed her on the mouth against her will. Two people corroborated having heard the story. Eyewitness rebuttal: None presented by the White House.
Ninni Laaksonen. Claims Trump groped her. Eyewitness rebuttal: None presented by the White House.
Jessica Leeds. Claims Trump groped her on an airplane. One person corroborated having heard the story. Eyewitness rebuttal: When the story came out — one of the first that did — a man who claimed to have been on the flight alleged that Leeds was the aggressor. The man making that claim, Anthony Gilberthorpe, has a history of making unproven claims, including that he had once regularly providedunderage boys to members of Britain’s Parliament for sex parties.
After Harvey Weinstein's fall, Trump accusers wonder why not him too.(Video: Alice Li/Photo: Celeste Sloman/The Washington Post)
Mindy McGillivray. Claims Trump groped her. One person corroborated having heard the story. Eyewitness rebuttal: None presented by the White House.
Jennifer Murphy. Claims Trump kissed her against her will. Eyewitness rebuttal: None presented by the White House.
Natasha Stoynoff. Claims Trump forcibly kissed her at Mar-a-Lago. Five people corroborated hearing about the story at the time. Eyewitness rebuttal: None presented by the White House, but a longtime family butler who came
into the room after the incident said that nothing seemed unusual.
Temple Taggart McDowell. Claims Trump kissed her against her will. Eyewitness rebuttal: None presented by the White House.
Karena Virginia. Claims Trump groped her. Eyewitness rebuttal: None presented by the White House.
Summer Zervos. Claims Trump aggressively kissed and groped her. One person corroborated having heard the story. Eyewitness rebuttal: None presented by the White House.
We will, of course, update this list with further eyewitness rebuttals should they be revealed. Unless, of course, there are not actually eyewitnesses that can rebut these stories. Instead, the White House has repeatedly insisted that there were solely to try to reject the allegations out-of-hand in hopes they’d eventually go away. Update: The White House sent a list of eyewitness rebuttals to ThinkProgress. It included:
The rebuttal to Leeds that had already been made public, as above.
Two former contestants denying that Trump used to walk backstage at the Miss Teen USA pageant as contestants were changing. Since it didn’t involve physical contact, that allegation was not included above.
That’s the extent of what was provided.
Trump complained about the reemergence of the stories on Twitter Tuesday morning, suggesting that it had happened because the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III had failed to take him down.
Despite thousands of hours wasted and many millions of dollars spent, the Democrats have been unable to show any collusion with Russia - so now they are moving on to the false accusations and fabricated stories of women who I don’t know and/or have never met. FAKE NEWS!
That tweet came less than an hour after PolitiFact announced its “Lie of the Year”: Trump’s repeated claim that the focus of Mueller’s investigation — Russian meddling in the 2016 election — was a “made-up story.”
Germany's center-left is considering another bargain with Angela Merkel, with the EU hanging in the balance — and its own survival.
Leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) Martin Schulz makes a phone call during a party congress on December 9, 2017 in Berlin. (John MacDougall/AFP)
BYERIK JONES,MATTHIAS MATTHIJS-DECEMBER 12, 2017, 4:33 PM
It is not easy being a European social democrat these days. Just ask Martin Schulz, the leader of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). Schulz’s party, which governed together with Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in a grand coalition for eight of the past 12 years, suffered its worst electoral result since the late 1940s in the most recent German parliamentary contest. In historic elections held last September, the SPD received just over 20 percent of the vote. The party seems to have suffered the fate of its center-left cousins in France and the Netherlands, both of which suffered historic defeats at the polls last spring. All these social democratic parties paid a heavy price for their pragmatic shifts toward the political center ground while serving in government.
The weakness of European social democracy is not new. With only a few exceptions, social democratic parties have been steadily losing ground in Europe since the 1970s. Nevertheless, those center-left parties have played a critical role in anchoring the working-class vote to the welfare state domestically and to the European project across the continent. Social democratic parties have also been central actors in integrating immigrant communities into the democratic electorate and in maintaining pressure against the rise of income inequality. To some extent, Europe’s social democrats are the victims of their own success. They managed to create a broad consensus around the need to balance capitalism’s excesses with active government intervention.
The SPD has been particularly important for the broader European social democratic cause. Without the Social Democrats, the German economy would be less efficient, its leadership in Europe would be more austere, and the country’s policies toward new immigrants would be less welcoming. But the SPD is also emblematic of social democracy’s current impasse. By governing in a national coalition with center-right Christian Democrats for eight of the last 12 years, Social Democrats have often had to compromise against the interests of their traditional working-class base. Tainted — some would say corrupted — by power, they have become both less pure and less effective as a progressive movement in German politics. When they have had real legislative achievements — for example, the introduction of a statutory minimum wage during the last government — they have been neutralized electorally by their close association with the center-right. In the eyes of many voters, the SPD has become just another centrist establishment party. And if that is the case, why not just vote for the real thing, i.e., Merkel’s CDU?
The SPD is now being forced to consider what role, if any, it is going to play in the next German government. The answer it settles on could determine the fate of the party — and the future of Europe’s broader social democratic movement.
Another Grand Coalition Would Be A Disaster For The SPD
Damaged by his ballot-box defeat in September, Schulz immediately announced his intention to have the SPD spend the next four years on the Bundestag’s opposition benches. This left Merkel with the unenviable task of cobbling together a so-called “Jamaica” coalition (black-yellow-green) with the liberal Free Democrats (who are the yellow to the black of the Christian Democrats) and the Greens (who are, well, green). The Free Democrats — still heavily scarred from their previous coalition experience with Merkel, which saw them ejected from the Bundestag in 2013 — agreed to talk but not to bargain. They abandoned the negotiations on a point of principle, although which point really mattered depends upon which leak from the talks you choose to believe. Some say it was Europe, others say it was immigration, and yet others cite irreconcilable philosophical differences. The bottom line is that the Free Democrats would not do a deal, and so Jamaica is not on the cards. This leaves only one realistic possibility to form a coalition government that does not include the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD).
In effect, in a country that prides itself on its stability culture and lack of political drama, the SPD is now being forced to rethink its strategy of rejuvenating its forces in opposition. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier — himself a Social Democrat — made it clear that he sees finding a workable majority as a political obligation for any major party worthy of its name. Caught between the call of national duty and the need to revamp their waning electoral support, Schulz and his colleagues are now faced with three choices: (1) to join another grand coalition with Merkel’s Christian Democrats; (2) to support a minority government led by Merkel and her more conservative partners in Bavaria’s Christian Social Union; or (3) to face the German voters once again in early elections.
Alas, it is not hard to guess what those options will bring. Another grand coalition will be fatal for the SPD, because it would deprive the party of its distinctive identity in the eyes of the voters. If it cooperates with the center-right CDU to craft policy for another four years, the SPD should be expected to hemorrhage votes both to the democratic socialist Left Party — to which it lost half a million votes last September — and to AfD, waving its anti-immigrant and welfare chauvinist banners, to which it also lost half a million votes. The other social democratic parties that have gone down this route — like the Dutch Labor Party — have suffered mightily as a consequence: Votes for the Dutch Labor Party fell from 2.3 million in 2012 to just under 600,000 in 2017 as voters shifted to the left-liberal D66, the Greens, and a party whose major platform is to support animal welfare rights. Matteo Renzi’s Democratic Party in Italy is worried about suffering a similar splintering of its support base next spring if it chooses to link up with Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia.
As for the third option, another round of voting will return much of the same as the last election. Worse, there could be a slight surge in support for the Free Democratic Party because it made its stand on principle, a bit of an increase in support for Merkel’s CDU as centrist voters yearn for political stability, and additional losses for the SPD, which will only look weaker and more indecisive now that it has committed to exploring another grand coalition. This means the only option remaining is to support a minority government.
Germans shudder at the thought that a minority government will mark a return to the instability of the Weimar era of the 1920s, when extremist parties pulled away support from the political center, eventually resulting in the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. Elites in Berlin also worry that it will imperil Germany’s leadership in Europe at a crucial time, as discussions are on the agenda on how to restructure European institutions after the United Kingdom’s departure, and with an eye on preventing another economic and financial crisis like the one that dominated much of the past decade. The SPD should take one for the team, they argue, both to show that Germans can be responsible to the electorate and to make sure that Europe continues to hew to German preferences. The opposite is more likely.
If the SPD stays out of the government, then we are less likely to see early elections before they are ready to face the electorate. In the meantime, the SPD would have the opportunity to push its agenda selectively both in the Bundestag and before the media. It may not have a seat at the table either in the various ministries or at the Council of the European Union, but it would have substantial agenda-setting powers nonetheless.
If the SPD is in the government, then its support can be taken for granted. But if the SPD is on the outside, Merkel will have to ask for its support, and it will be able to announce the conditions for their participation. Merkel will also have to accept the blame for working with other voting blocks like the AfD in promoting her agenda when the SPD is not persuaded. In other words, the balance of power will shift. The SPD will be able to take credit for success while leaving the Christian Democrats to take the blame for failure.
A Minority Government Is Not Unstable
The German Basic Law is in many ways an institutional reaction to the political instability of the 1920s Weimar Republic. As a result, the constitutional provisions to shore up the chancellor and her government are very strong. The chancellor is the only one who can face a confidence vote. The rest of the government is appointed by the chancellor. Hence, the only challenge is for the chancellor to be elected. That can take place by a simple majority of the Bundestag in the first of two rounds of voting — one initiated by the president of the republic and, if that fails, the other initiated by the Bundestag itself. If no candidate in either of those first two rounds wins the support of the majority of members of parliament, then the voting moves to a third round, where the candidate with the most votes wins.
In the current situation, Angela Merkel would almost certainly win more votes than any other candidate. The only questions in that case are the following: (1) Would Steinmeier, who used to serve as her foreign minister, agree to appoint her as chancellor of a minority government? (2) If so, would Merkel, who has expressed major reservations against leading such a government, actually agree to serve? From this perspective, it is no mystery why both Steinmeier and Merkel are eager for a renewal of the current grand coalition government. They do not want to be responsible for a leap in the dark, and both would much rather see Schulz fall on his own sword and accept a grand coalition government.
Neither Steinmeier nor Merkel is eager for early elections. The most recent polls do not show an increase in support for the AfD, but that is no guarantee that the outcome will be any better than it is at the moment in terms of forming a stable coalition. In other words, the instability and impasse that could result from a quick return to the polls would be on them. The burden would fall particularly hard on Merkel’s allies in Bavaria’s Christian Social Union. They are already in the throes of a succession struggle, and they have to go to the polls for regional elections in Bavaria in less than a year’s time. Another round of national elections only increases the risks that the party will lose further ground to the AfD on its right. That is why the Christian Social Union is tacking from the more centrist Horst Seehofer to the more right-wing Markus Söder. The SPD has no business forming a coalition with the Christian Democrats in such circumstances. Luckily for them, they do not need to do so.
If Merkel agrees to become chancellor again (and Steinmeier agrees to appoint her), then she and her Christian Democrats will own the German government. They will not be able to guarantee a majority in favor of legislation without the support of other parties. It will be a weak government in the policy sense. But they will not be constantly threatened with a vote of no confidence. The only way to throw them out of office is to find another candidate for chancellor who can win a majority in the Bundestag. Merkel could of course lose a no confidence vote and then request to dissolve the Bundestag. In turn, the president would have to agree to that request. But, in that case, it would again be Steinmeier and Merkel who would be responsible for any instability, since they would control the decision-making process. If they wanted to avoid inflicting that instability on the German people, they would just have to make a deal with the SPD. The bottom line is that a minority government is only as unstable as the chancellor and the president would like it to be. The SPD should make them own that responsibility, and they would be better for it as a result.
A Social Democratic Policy Agenda Is Possible In A Minority Government
Of course an uncooperative SPD would make it an easy scapegoat for both Steinmeier as president and Merkel as chancellor. That is why it would be important for the SPD to announce a progressive agenda up front, both domestically and with respect to the European Union. This is where the SPD gets to set the agenda. In many ways, it can do so more easily from outside a coalition than from working inside the ministries. The goal should be to chart the broad direction of policy rather than to invest too much effort and attention on the implementation. This time around — and in contrast to what happened in the last two grand coalition governments — the SPD can take credit for the successes and leave the Christian Democrats to explain the policy failures.
Germany is one of those rare countries with a bit of a budget surplus. The SPD could insist its support in the Bundestag for a Merkel-led minority Cabinet depends on much of that surplus to either go to public investment in infrastructure or targeted tax cuts for the working classes. On the environment, the SPD could point to the paradox of Merkel chastising Donald Trump’s America for pulling out of the Paris climate change accords while not doing enough at home to meet its own carbon emissions targets. On migration, the SPD should tie its support for family reunification of over 1 million Syrian refugees to a more active policy to shore up the wages of the bottom half, which have been stagnant for over a decade. On education, it could push the minority government into the direction of investing more in Germany’s vocational training programs in a concerted effort to gain some of their lost lower-skilled voters back. These are policies for which there is broad public support on the left of the political spectrum. It would allow the SPD to re-establish itself as a genuinely progressive political movement.
On Europe, Martin Schulz already made a big splash by suggesting he wanted to see a “United States of Europe” by 2025, supported by a new constitutional treaty that is the result of serious consultations with civil society and the people. Most controversially, Schulz suggested that those countries that opposed such a new treaty could simply leave the EU, in a not-too-subtle swipe at Hungary and Poland. While Schulz’s proposals may seem pie in the sky, they at least have the virtue of moving the needle on many EU integration issues that are in need of completion. We may not get a new constitutional treaty, let alone a “US of E,” but the SPD could insist Merkel move her European agenda away from national risk reduction toward European risk-sharing.
In concrete terms, that would mean completing the banking union by accepting shared deposit insurance, and even bringing Eurobonds — a commonly issued eurozone debt instrument that could compete with U.S. treasury bills on international markets — back onto the negotiating table. The SPD could bring about a shift in emphasis from austerity and structural reform toward joint investment and solidarity. They could go a long way to meeting French President Emmanuel Macron’s ambitious proposals for making the next step in European integration. It could also support further steps toward a genuine common foreign and security policy. This would not be without risk.
While there is strong support among the SPD’s establishment for these pro-EU policies, the party will have to convince the German public and its own grassroots that policies of European solidarity are both in Europe’s and in Germany’s interest. The only way the European project will survive is if Germany can move from blaming the EU periphery for all the euro’s woes and put its shoulders under a policy that has EU solidarity as the quid pro quo for national fiscal responsibility.
Germany and the SPD find themselves at the crossroads. While it is Angela Merkel who seems to be the one who holds all the cards, having just won a fourth consecutive electoral victory with her CDU, in many ways the SPD holds the key to the future of Germany and the future of Europe. If the German Social Democrats can let go of the Weimar ghost of unstable minority governments, this could be the beginning of social democracy’s renewal — both in Germany and in Europe writ large.
The tweet itself says: “What a shock – it turns out that 84% of the so-called “child migrants” who were tested in Sweden are actually adults!”
The photo that accompanies the text uses slightly different language: “84% of “child migrants” in Sweden are actually adults”.
The first claim is misleading. The second claim is simply wrong. Here’s why.
Claim 1
“84% of the so-called “child migrants” who were tested in Sweden are actually adults”
This claim appears to come from a Westmonster article (linked in the Leave.EU tweet).
The article looks at a recent report by Sweden’s Forensic Medicine Agency, which carries out medical checks on migrants arriving in Sweden to see whether they are under 18 years old.
It’s worth saying that participation in the test is voluntary, but if you don’t have any documentation to prove you’re a child, it will be difficult to get asylum in Sweden as a minor.
Swedish newspaper The Local says that between mid-March and late October this year, the Forensic Medicine Agency carried out a total of 7,858 age assessments. The Agency found 6,628 individuals that it assessed to be 18 or older, and a further 112 who were “possibly” older.
That means it’s true that 84 per cent of those migrants tested in Sweden were over 18.
But the key phrase here is “of those migrants tested”.
The Swedish authorities only test a migrant’s age when it’s in doubt. For example, a toddler or a 10-year-old would not be tested to see if they’re under 18.
So that 84 per cent figure only tells us how many of those who were already suspected to be over 18 “failed” the test. It doesn’t tell us about the much younger children who were never tested in the first place.
It’s also worth pointing out that 430 of the migrants who took part in the age test were actually found to be under 18. They were being tested because they had claimed to be adults when they first applied for asylum in Sweden, but the authorities thought they might be children.
Claim 2
“84% of ‘child migrants’ in Sweden are actually adults”
This may sound identical to the first claim from Leave.EU. But crucially, it has dropped the key words “who were tested”.
That means we’re now talking about all the child migrants, or alleged child migrants, in Sweden – not just those who have had their age tested.
We can’t find a reliable figure for the number of child migrants living in Sweden today.
Based on figures from the Swedish Migration Agency, we calculate that since 2015, Sweden has received a total of 89,186 applications from migrants who are, or who claim to be, under 18. The vast majority of those (70,000) were made in 2015.
In the three year period, 51,688 applications were from “unaccompanied minors”, i.e., children coming to Sweden without their parents.
Only 14,922 of those applications were accepted. But it’s worth saying that we don’t know why the remaining 36,766 applications were not granted.
The Swedish authorities point out that some people withdraw their applications for asylum, some people turn 18 during the application process, and others have their applications cancelled.
In other words, we can’t say whether those unsuccessful applications were rejected because migrants failed the age test.
Looking specifically at 2017 – which is the focus of the Leave.EU tweet – there were 7,893 applications by child migrants to live in Sweden. Of those, 6,828 were “unaccompanied minors”. The Swedish Migration Agency granted permission to 4,993 of those unaccompanied minors.
That means that in 2017, the Swedish Migration Agency granted asylum to 73 per cent of migrants who applied as “unaccompanied minors”. Again, we don’t know how many of those whose applications weren’t accepted were rejected because they failed the age test.
The photo in the tweet isn’t from Sweden – it’s from the Greece-Macedonia border
We also traced the photo, which you might think – given the context of the tweet – shows child migrants or alleged child migrants in Sweden.
Claim 1 – that “84% of the so-called “child migrants” who were tested in Sweden are actually adults” – is technically true, but only tells half the story. Migrants are only subject to tests if there is doubt over their age. There are many more child migrants who are not tested because they don’t need to be.
Without providing this context, we think the claim is misleading.
Claim 2 – “84% of “child migrants” in Sweden are actually adults” – is wrong because it omits the phrase “who were tested”. By removing this caveat, it suggests that 84 per cent of all the migrants in Sweden who claim to be children are there under false pretences. That isn’t the case.
FILE PHOTO: The exterior of Camp Delta is seen at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, March 6, 2013. REUTERS/Bob Strong/File Photo Tom Miles-DECEMBER 13, 2017
GENEVA (Reuters) - An independent U.N. human rights investigator said on Wednesday that he had information about an inmate being tortured at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay detention facility, despite Washington banning “enhanced interrogation techniques” almost 10 years ago.
The U.S. Department of Defense denied the allegation, saying there was no credible evidence to support it.
Nils Melzer, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, said he had information that Ammar al-Baluchi - accused of being a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks on the United States - was being subjected to treatment that is banned under international law.
SPONSORED
“His torture and ill-treatment are reported to continue,” a statement from the U.N. human rights office said, without giving details of the source of Melzer’s information.
“In addition to the long-term effects of past torture, noise and vibrations are reportedly still being used against him, resulting in constant sleep deprivation and related physical and mental disorders, for which he allegedly does not receive adequate medical attention,” it said.
Major Ben Sakrisson, a Pentagon spokesman, said the allegation was not true.
“These claims have been investigated on multiple occasions in the past and no credible evidence has been found to substantiate his claims,” he said.
The prison, which was opened by President George W. Bush to hold terrorism suspects captured overseas after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks came to symbolise harsh detention practices that opened the United States to accusations of torture.
His successor Barack Obama ended the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” via executive order in January 2009, and reduced the inmate population to 41, but fell short of fulfilling his promise to close the jail.
President Donald Trump asked Congress earlier this year for funds to upgrade the jail, having said during his electoral campaign that he wanted to “load it up with some bad dudes”.
Citing a 2014 Senate investigation, the U.N. statement said al-Baluchi was said to have suffered relentless torture for three-and-a-half years in CIA “black sites” before being moved to Guantanamo, where he had been in a severely restricted-access facility at Guantanamo Bay for more than a decade.
Al-Baluchi, a Kuwaiti-born Pakistani citizen also known as Abdul Aziz Ali, is the nephew and alleged co-conspirator of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
IMPUNITY
Melzer said the ban on torture and ill-treatment was one of the most fundamental norms of international law and could not be justified in any circumstances, and called for prosecution of U.S. officials who had carried out torture.
“By failing to prosecute the crime of torture in CIA custody, the U.S. is in clear violation of the Convention against Torture and is sending a dangerous message of complacency and impunity to officials in the U.S. and around the world,” Melzer said in the statement.
He said he had renewed a long-standing request to visit Guantanamo Bay to interview inmates, but he and his predecessors in the role had consistently been denied access.
A spokesman for the U.S. State Department said that the U.S. constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and requires humane conditions of confinement, including that of solitary confinement.
“We support the work of the U.N. special rapporteurs and the United States has a long history of engaging constructively on matters within mandates of the special rapporteurs,” he said.
THE PHILIPPINE Congress on Wednesday approved President Rodrigo Duterte’s request to extend martial law in the entire Mindanao island for one year, enraging civil society, church and militant groups.
In a joint session, the Senate and House of Representatives granted Duterte’s request for martial law extension and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus from Jan 1 to Dec 31, 2018 in Mindanao, where Islamic State-inspired militants tried but failed to establish a “wilayat” (province) in Marawi City that was left in shambles after a five-month war with government troops.
Duterte declared martial in Mindanao on May 23 after the Islamic State-inspired Maute Group attacked Marawi that displaced over 400,000 civilians. The declaration was good for 60 days but Congress approved Duterte’s request to extend it until Dec 31, 2017.
Duterte poses for a picture with female soldiers during his visit at Bangolo town in Marawi city, southern Philippines, on Oct 17, 2017. Source: Malacanang Presidential Photo/Handout via Reuters
On Wednesday, the Senate voted 14-4 to extend martial law for one year in Mindanao while 226 favoured and 23 opposed from the House of Representatives. Civil society groups responded strongly, fearing there will be an increase in human rights violations and state-sponsored killings in the southern Philippines.
In seeking a one-year extension as recommended by the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, the president justified that the military rule will “ensure total eradication of the Daesh (Islamic State)-inspired Da’awatul Islamiyah Waliyatul Masriq (DIWM), other like-minded local and foreign terror groups and armed lawless groups, the communist terrorists and their coddlers, supporters, and financiers.”
“Public safety indubitably requires such further extension, not only for the sake of security and public order, but more importantly to enable the government and the people of Mindanao to pursue the bigger task of rehabilitation and the promotion of a stable socio-economic growth and development,”Duterte said in a letter dated Dec 8.
Duterte said remnants of the groups of the Maute brothers and Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon Hapilon have started recruiting and training new fighters. Isnilon, the designated emir of Islamic State in Southeast Asia, and the Maute brothers were killed during the Marawi siege.
A damaged mosque is seen in Marawi city, Philippines. Source: Reuters/Romeo Ranoco
He said members and allies of the DIWM were continuing their efforts in regrouping in Maguindanao, North Cotabato, Sulu and Basilan provinces, geared to establish a wilayat in the Philippines and Southeast Asia.
Duterte also cited threats from the Turaifie Group, the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters and the communist New People’s Army (NPA) in seeking a one-year martial law extension.
The NPA, which is waging the longest running communist insurgency in Asia, took advantage of the war in Marawi and intensified its “terroristic acts” in different areas of the country, Duterte said.
“These recent developments involving the NDF-CPP-NPA forebode another year of intensified armed hostilities which, together with other security concerns described above, continue to make Mindanao the hotbed of rebellion,” he said.
NDF stands for National Democratic Front and CPP for Communist Party of the Philippines. Duterte classified both groups as terrorist organisations early this month due to their intensified offensives in Mindanao and other parts of the country.
In defending Duterte’s request to extend martial law for one year, Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea said that while the situation in Marawi has changed substantially, the battlefield against violent Islamic extremism has moved to other parts of Mindanao.
The government terminated military operations in Marawi on Oct 23, exactly five months after the Maute Group laid siege on the Muslim-dominated lakeside city. “We are not seeking unlimited martial law but unlimited peace in Mindanao,” Medialdea said.
Defence Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said that Islamic State-aligned groups were actively recruiting Muslim young people again. “They (terrorists) have not stopped but moved to other places (in Mindanao),” he said.
Opposition Senator Franklin Drilon slammed Duterte’s request to extend martial law in Mindanao for one year.
Government soldiers stand by a mural painted by Muslim students as a symbol of call for peace after the end of assault against pro-Islamic State militant groups in Marawi, on a wall along a main highway of Pantar, Lanao Del Norte, southern Philippines, Oct 28, 2017. Source: Reuters/Romeo Ranoco
“There is no longer a state of rebellion (in Mindanao) but only threats at this point,” Drilon said, noting that an extension is “a violation of the constitution” given the prevailing situation in the island. There is no actual uprising in Mindanao that warrants an extension of martial law, the senator added.
Drilon feared the martial law extension in Mindanao is a prelude to the declaration of martial law in the entire country. The senator earlier vowed the opposition party will question the granting of another extension before the Supreme Court.
Sadrach Sabella, spokesman of human rights group Karapatan or Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights in Central Mindanao region, said martial law extension “will only further embolden the military to violate the rights of poor civilians.”
“The militarisation, especially in remote communities, will intensify further to silence the dissent of marginalised individuals against mining companies and big projects in their ancestral domains,” he told Asian Correspondent.
Sabella said harassments such as surveillance against activists criticising the government have been rising since Duterte assumed power in June 2016. With martial law extension, it will not wane especially with Duterte’s tirades against the leftists, he added.
At least two members of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines in Mindanao, Bishops Edwin dela Pena of Marawi and Archbishop Antonio Ledesma of Cagayan de Oro, have expressed opposition to the extension of martial law in Mindanao.
Protesters burn a cube effigy with a face of President Rodrigo Duterte during a National Day of Protest outside the presidential palace in metro Manila, Philippines, on Sept 21, 2017. Source: Reuters/Romeo Ranoco
Ledesma said extending martial law in Mindanao would only scare investors while dela Pena said it should not be Mindanao-wide but should only include areas of tension.
Shortly after the Marawi siege erupted, the Catholic bishops in Mindanao said that martial law in the island should only be temporary.
In a statement, the Movement Against Tyranny, which is composed of religious, academic, media and civil society groups, said extending the martial law for another year “is a threat to Philippine democracy.”
“We fear that the President wants to use martial law to escalate his bloody anti-illegal drugs and counter-insurgency campaigns, crackdown on dissent and intimidate the public into submission,” the group said.
Her parents, Naomi Findlay, 31, and Dean Wilkins, 43, from Nottingham, say Vanellope is "a real fighter".
Naomi said: "It was a real shock when the ultrasound showed that her heart was outside her chest and scary because we didn't know what would happen."
The couple paid for a blood test which showed there were no chromosomal abnormalities and that made them determined to continue with the pregnancy.
Dean added: "We were advised to have a termination and that the chances of survival were next to none - no-one believed she was going to make it except us."
Naomi said having a termination was "not something she could do".
"To see, even at nine weeks, a heartbeat - no matter where it was. It was not something I was going to take away.
"In a way her strength gave me a strength to keep going," she added.
Vanellope had been due on Christmas eve but was delivered by Caesarean section on 22 November in order to reduce the chances of infection and damage to the heart.
There were around 50 medical staff present including obstetricians, heart surgeons, anaesthetists, neonatologists and midwives.
Minutes after her birth, Vanellope's chest was covered with a sterile bag to keep her heart moist and reduce the risk of infection
Minutes after her birth, Vanellope's chest was covered with a sterile bag to keep her heart moist and reduce the risk of infection
Within 50 minutes of birth, the baby was undergoing the first of three operations to put her heart back inside the body.
In the most recent surgery, Vanellope's own skin was used to cover the hole in her chest.
Naomi and Dean with Vanellope
Frances Bu'Lock, consultant paediatric cardiologist, said: "Before she was born things looked very bleak but now they are quite a lot better - Vanellope is doing really well and has proved very resilient.
"In the future we may be able to put in some internal bony protection for her heart - perhaps using 3D printing or something organic that would grow with her."
A handful of children in the United States have also survived this condition.
Among them is Audrina Cardenas who was born in Texas in October 2012.
She also had surgery to place her heart back inside her chest and was sent home after three months.
Audrina was given a protective plastic shield to cover her chest.
Glenfield Hospital says Vanellope still faces "a long road ahead" - the major risk being infection.
Baby born with heart outside body goes home
The next step is to take her off a ventilator, which is being used to aid her recovery from surgery.
Dean Wilkins said: "She defying everything - it's beyond a miracle."
The couple named Vanellope after a character in the Disney film "Wreck-It Ralph".
Naomi said: "Vanellope in the film is a real fighter and at the end turns into a princess so we thought it was fitting."
Rami Almeghari-11 December 2017
Leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) Martin Schulz makes a phone call during a party congress on December 9, 2017 in Berlin. (John MacDougall/AFP) 
