U.S. judge questions whether Trump can block Twitter users

FILE PHOTO - The masthead of U.S. President Donald Trump's @realDonaldTrump Twitter account is seen on July 11, 2017. @realDonaldTrump/Handout via REUTERS

Brendan Pierson-MARCH 8, 2018 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday expressed skepticism about whether U.S. President Donald Trump can constitutionally block Twitter users whose views he does not like from following and retweeting from his own Twitter account.

At a hearing in Manhattan federal court, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald asked Trump’s lawyer Michael Baer whether letting Trump bar users from @realDonaldTrump would violate their First Amendment free speech rights.

She asked whether Twitter was different from a public town hall, where government officials would be unable to pull the plug from a microphone to mute speakers with unwelcome views.

“Once it is a public forum, you can’t shut somebody up because you don’t like what they’re saying,” Buchwald said.

Baer said the appropriate analogy was not a town hall, but rather Trump choosing to walk away from someone at a public event.

“The president has an associational interest in deciding who he’s going to spend his time with in that setting,” he said.

Buchwald scheduled the hearing to consider Trump’s request to dismiss a lawsuit filed in July over his use of Twitter by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and several Twitter users.

They said Trump’s account is a public forum, and that the president cannot block Twitter users simply because they criticize, mock or disagree with him in replies to his tweets.

Trump’s Twitter use draws intense interest for his unvarnished commentary, including attacks on critics. His tweets often shape news and are retweeted tens of thousands of times.

Baer, who works for the U.S. Department of Justice, has also argued that Trump’s use of Twitter was personal, and did not qualify as a “state action.”

In contrast, Katherine Fallow, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Buchwald the record “shows unambiguously that the president operates his account in an official capacity.”

She said Trump often uses Twitter to announce policies or policy proposals, such as banning the military from accepting transgender recruits.

Twitter lets users post snippets of text, called tweets, to which other users may respond. When one user blocks another, the blocked user cannot respond to the blocker’s tweets.

It is not clear when Buchwald will rule.

Steeling for a Fight

Trump's threatened tariffs won't hurt China. They'll goad the EU to retaliate and could spark a global trade war that won't end well for anyone.

BY PHILIPPE LEGRAIN- MARCH 8, 2018, 4:36 AM

 

A worker tests the quality of molten iron at a furnace in the production area of the Zhong Tian (Zenith) Steel Group Corporation in Changzhou, Jiangsu province, China on May 12, 2016. (KEVIN FRAYER/GETTY IMAGES)

“Trade wars are good, and easy to win.” So tweeted President Donald Trump on March 2. His flippant remark may soon be put to the test, as the European Union gears up to retaliate against the punitive tariffs that Trump threatened to slap on U.S. steel and aluminum imports. An EU response would prompt a tit-for-tat blow against U.S. imports of European cars, Trump added on Twitter the following day. China and Canada have also threatened to hit back against Trump’s protectionism. Trade war seems to beckon.

Trump let slip his intention to slap 25 percent import duties on steel and 10 percent tariffs on aluminum for an “unlimited period” at a question-and-answer session with industry representatives on March 1. Of course, it may not come to that. Trump often makes big threats that amount to nothing or are subsequently watered down. He may be talking tough to send a signal to his electoral base, to whom he promised decisive action to bring back American jobs. He was doubtless trying to divert attention from Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, as well as from the crises that threaten to engulf his son-in-law and plenipotentiary, Jared Kushner. Trump’s eventual trade measures may end up being less extreme; for instance, his planned announcementThursday may exclude some countries and target only some steel and aluminum products.

Even if the president softens his line, protectionists now seem to be driving U.S. economic policy.

Even if the president softens his line, protectionists now seem to be driving U.S. economic policy.

 The resignation of Gary Cohn on March 6, Trump’s internationalist chief economic advisor, who was vehemently opposed to the tariffs, suggests that the economic nationalists in the White House have won the debate. And if the threatened blanket tariffs are indeed imposed, on the spurious pretext that imports of steel from NATO allies such as Canada and Germany threaten America’s “national security,” the consequences could be severe. Reality TV politics could give way to real trade conflict.

The immediate economic impact of the tariffs would be significant. They would affect $46 billion of U.S. imports, some 2 percent of total U.S. goods imports. Perversely, the United States itself would be hit hardest. While only about 140,000 Americans work in the steel industry, some 17 million are employed in steel-using industries. More expensive steel would push up those firms’ costs, making them less competitive globally and increasing prices for American consumers. President George W. Bush imposed less extreme steel tariffs in 2002; they ended up costing 200,000 jobs, a study found. (Bush’s tariffs affected only some steel products and exempted Canada, Mexico, and others. They were lifted a year later after the EU and other countries challenged their legality at the World Trade Organization.)

Trump’s tariffs ostensibly aim to target China, which the Trump administration views as a strategic competitor and military threat. Yet they would leave Beijing largely unscathed

Trump’s tariffs ostensibly aim to target China, which the Trump administration views as a strategic competitor and military threat. Yet they would leave Beijing largely unscathed

; China exports only 0.2 percent of its total steel output to the United States. Moreover, China ranks eleventh among sources of U.S. steel imports, accounting for a 2 percent share of the total. While China is the fourth-biggest aluminum exporter to the United States, the $3.1 billion of aluminum it exported accounts for a tiny fraction of the $462.6 billion worth of total goods it exported to the United States in 2016. For China, Trump’s tariffs would be scarcely a scratch.

But they would hurt many other countries. If you break down the value of U.S. steel imports in 2017 by country, you get a roll-call of American allies: EU (21.4 percent), Canada (17.6 percent), South Korea (9.6 percent), and Mexico (8.6 percent). Canada in particular is closely integrated with the U.S. defense industry. No wonder the Pentagon is aghast.

The economic costs would multiply if other countries retaliated. The European Commission is already preparing to hit back. The EU exported $6.5 billion of steel and $1.4 billion of aluminum to the United States in 2017, but it is initially planning to impose sanctions against only $3.5 billion of U.S. imports.

To that end, the Commission has presented EU governments with a list of more than 100 products that could be targeted, chosen for their political sensitivity. In addition to steel, aluminum, and agricultural produce from farm states that voted for Trump, these include Levi’s jeans, bourbon whiskey (principally from Kentucky, the home state of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), and Harley-Davidson motorcycles and Wisconsin cheese (from the home state of House Speaker Paul Ryan.) The pressure seems to be working: “We are extremely worried about the consequences of a trade war and are urging the White House to not advance with this plan,” Ryan’s spokeswoman said.
For sure, retaliation would be painful for EU consumers and businesses that rely on U.S. products. Like real wars, trade wars cause casualties on both sides. But EU policymakers feel compelled to stand up to Trump’s bullying. For once, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker got it right when he said: “This is basically a stupid process, the fact that we must to do this, but we have to.”
Trump seems to think that the size of the U.S. market and its trade deficit allow it to play hardball — in 2017, the United States had a $151 billion goods trade deficit with the EU — but the EU and other governments feel that they have more to lose from giving in to Trump’s bullying. While Trump seems to thrive on creating chaos, this is unlikely to be productive in trade diplomacy.

The biggest danger is that if nobody is willing to back down, this tit-for-tat process could quickly escalate. Trump’s threatened retaliation against European cars would take the conflict to another level. The U.S. imported more than $43 billion of cars from the EU in 2016 — a tenth of its total imports from the EU — $22.2 billion of which came from Germany alone. How might the EU respond to that?

Ultimately, a trade war would cost jobs, push up inflation (and potentially interest rates), and harm economic growth.

Ultimately, a trade war would cost jobs, push up inflation (and potentially interest rates), and harm economic growth.

 It would deal a further blow to political relations between the United States and its allies, which have already been undermined by Trump’s “America First” rhetoric, disdain for liberal values, and transactional approach to foreign policy. And it would shatter the informal alliance among the United States, European Union, and Japan to tackle what they see as unfair Chinese trade practices while allowing China to pose as a defender of the international trading system.

A trade war between the U.S. and the EU would be particularly thorny for a British government consumed by Brexit. It would underline the value of being part of a big trading bloc capable of facing up to Trump’s bullying, and thus the cost to the United Kingdom of exiting the EU in March 2019. It would make an ambitious post-Brexit trade deal with the United States even less likely. And it would make the United Kingdom acutely vulnerable to U.S. pressure as it seeks to renegotiate bilaterally all sorts of treaties that the EU previously negotiated on its behalf with the U.S. government. Predictably, Washington is already playing hardball in renegotiating the Open Skies agreement that governs transatlantic air travel.

Trump is also seeking to use the steel tariffs as leverage in the ongoing renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico. But the U.S. is demandingterms that its partners deem unacceptable, including a requirement that 50 percent of the content of cars made in NAFTA come from the United States.

Steel protectionism may also be contagious. There is a glut of steel globally, and the EU is preparing safeguard measures in the event of a surge of steel and aluminum imports from other countries as a result of the Trump tariffs.

The EU and others are also planning to challenge Trump’s tariffs at the WTO. While WTO rules allow countries to restrict trade on national security grounds, this exception is designed for exceptional times such as war. The EU has a strong case since Trump himself has repeatedly justified his threatened tariffs on economic rather than national security grounds.

But this is a lose-lose scenario for the WTO. It may be loath to be seen to trample on supposed U.S. national security concerns, but if it ruled in the Washington’s favor, this would provide carte blanche for other countries to spuriously curb imports on national security grounds. If it ruled against Trump, his administration would probably ignore the ruling, and might even pull out of the WTO, as it has previously threatened to do. The former would leave the U.S. tariffs in place, with legal sanction for the retaliatory tariffs by the EU and other trading partners deemed to have suffered harm. The latter would blow a huge hole in the institution that provides peaceful arbitration for international trade disputes.

Trade wars are never good. Nor do they have winners, let alone easy ones. And they certainly won’t make America great again.

It’s time She Decides whether, when and with whom

Young girls and women during mass meeting in a village in Tamil Nadu, India. Source: Mangala Namasivayam/ ARROW

By Sivananthi Thanenthiran | 8th March 2018

MORE than 100 years ago in August 1910, women who had gathered at the International Women’s Conference in Copenhagen decided to organise an annual International Women’s Day – as a strategy to promote equal rights for women and rally for support for suffrage.

Since 1911, women have been marching on this day to demand for the rights necessary for women to be equal citizens in our societies. In the early days the pressing issues were the right to vote, the right to hold public office, the right to work. In later years, women have fought for and won various other rights – economic, social and political.

On this International Women’s Day, I wanted to record that the most significant shift I saw last year was the creation of #SheDecides. It started off with a bold social media response by Lilianne Ploumen, the then-Dutch Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, to counter President Trump’s reinstatement and expansion of the Global Gag Rule – which denies funding for any organisation that delivers or advocates for safe abortion services. Lilianne pledged that the government of the Netherlands will stand up and support unilaterally – women’s right to decide and choose.

SEE ALSO: The power women of Southeast Asia

The swift response saw the governments of Belgium, Denmark and Sweden follow up with their commitments to reaffirm and protect women’s autonomy and agency. Within a month, more than 50 countries, foundations and organisations joined. They were united by a vision, that we would all step up, stand up and speak up for women’s and girls’ rights to decide for themselves and to have choices on critical decisions which affect their lives: Who to love? Who to marry, when to marry or not to marry at all? Whether or not to have children, when to have children, how many children to have and how often? How we can enjoy pleasure? In which ways may pleasure be enjoyed?

Women from the Shamkey in the Sheikupura district of Pakistan gather to discuss maternal health. Source: ARROW / Shirkat Gah

It was momentous simply because sexual and reproductive rights are amongst the most contested rights and here so many varied stakeholders were visible and vociferous in their support of these rights. Committed policymakers and activists know that access to safe abortion is used as the ‘deal-breaker’ issue to deny women and girls a comprehensive range of sexual and reproductive health services. But the real target of conservative attack is the very idea of individual sexual and reproductive autonomy, and the aim is to whittle down these fundamental freedoms to naught.

These include a range of issues such as access to contraceptive services, comprehensive sexuality education, respect and recognition of sexual and gender diversity and a denial of services to most at risk populations. This attack also calls service providers, health professionals, on-the-ground implementers to set aside sound public health practice, reject evidence-based policymaking and to ignore scientific and medical expertise.

ARROW and her 73 partners were amongst the first to strongly support SheDecides, because we strongly felt that our region needs a SheDecides paradigm shift. The United States is not alone in its reversal of women’s fortunes.

SEE ALSO: Time for women to reclaim their bodies: SheDecides movement fights for sexual rights

In 2015, around 85,000 women in the Asia-Pacific died through causes related to pregnancy or childbirth, according to UNFPA. This meant that every single day, on average, over 200 families suffered the loss of a loved one. The average maternal mortality rate in the region is extremely high at 127 per 100,000 live births, compared to the developed-country average of just 12 per 100,000. And 9 of every 10 maternal deaths in Asia-Pacific occur in just 12 countries. What’s worse is that up to 90 per cent of these deaths could have been prevented through quality antenatal, obstetric and perinatal care – including care given by midwives and skilled birth attendants.

Young women bear the double burden of age and gender. Some 12.8 million adolescent girls worldwide have an unmet need for family planning and about half live in Asia-Pacific region. Never-married women, including adolescents and young women, have a great disadvantage in obtaining contraceptives largely due to stigma attached to being sexually active before marriage. About 63 percent of the adolescent pregnancies in the region are unintended. Almost 1 in 10 girls who fall pregnant by the age of 16 live in South and Southeast Asia.

Female students in a classroom at Gawsia Islamia Fazia Madrasah in Dhaka, Bangladesh, learning about adolescent body changes, sexual health and the concept of a ‘safe space’. Source: Jeremy Hu / ARROW

Governments in our region too need to be cognisant and help promote, protect and fulfil the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of women and girls. SRHR is a prerequisite for gender equality because they encompass three core elements integral to individual autonomy: the right to freely decide on matters of sexuality and reproduction; the right to consent; the right to have bodily integrity.

SEE ALSO: Seen but not heard: Women in Burmese media

SRHR issues, worldwide, are not only the result of gender inequality but also of socioeconomic inequality. In every country around the world, women who are poorer, lesser educated, or belong to marginalised groups (indigenous, disabled, ethnic minorities) suffer from poorer sexual and reproductive health outcomes compared to their better educated and wealthier sisters.

There is no doubt in my mind that the sexual and reproductive rights agenda is the defining equality struggle of this century.

This agenda must be both total and inclusive. We cannot cherry-pick amongst these rights or amongst the recipients of those rights. We have to stand up for women and girls still at the margins and help begin the march to the center because when She Decides the world is better, stronger and safer.

Sivananthi Thanenthiran is the Executive Director of the Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW), a regional NGO based in Malaysia championing sexual and reproductive health and rights, and a SheDecides Champion for Asia Pacific. Sivananthi has co-authored “Reclaiming & Redefining Rights: The Status of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Asia and the Pacific” in 2009 and 2013. She has presented papers on sexual and reproductive health and rights at the UN in Bangkok and New York.

International Women’s Day – Some Contentious Thoughts

We are at a juncture where women are making themselves known as equal humans requiring equal dignity, opportunity and returns. 

by Ruwantissa Abeyratne- Mar 8, 2018

She “ceased to be a little girl” and “at once stepped into the post of mother, called in the village
doctor, gave the patient his pills at the proper intervals, sat up all night by his pillow, cooked
his gruel and nursed him back to health”.  ~ Rabindranath Tagore, The Postmaster 

( March 8, 2018, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) On March 8th every year we mark International Women’s day.  This year’s theme for International Women’s Day is “Time is Now: Rural and urban activists transforming women’s lives”. This year we mark the day with good news and bad news.  First, the good news.  A newly released UNICEF report says that child marriages are declining, with the largest drop in South Asia, according to UNICEF.  A decade ago, a South Asian girl below the age of 18 was threatened with a 50% chance of getting married off, some as young as 13 years of age.  Today, that figure has dropped to 30% – still a long way to go – nonetheless we have made some progress.   The bad news is that in February this year, the dreaded Islamist militant group Boko Haram group in Nigeria attacked the village of Dapchi with machine guns, targeting the Government Girls Science and Technical School and kidnapped more than a hundred girls from their dormitory.  A Nigerian government spokesperson said there were still as many as 50 girls missing.

It will be recalled that in 2014, the same group abducted many girls from the north-east Nigerian town of Chibok. Of the 276 girls kidnapped, more than 100 girls are still missing.

Then there is the emerging  news of odious conduct of males toward females in the “civilized” world. Many powerful figures are coming out of the woodwork – apparently perceived up to now as “respectable” – accused of abusing women over which they wield power.   The above mentioned are nothing but stories of exploitation of vulnerable women: by men.  Over the years, women have tried to overcome not only sexual abuse by predators, but inequality at work and pay and general indignity.  As Arundhati Roy says: “Many people have fought long and remarkable battles to create the freedoms we have. How can we concede those spaces? How can we think that some natural phenomenon has gifted us these freedoms? No! They have been wrested, one by one”. This statement is reminiscent of a statement by Dr. Sadashiv Pawar, who says in his article The Portrayal of Women and Social Oppression in Rabindranath Tagore’s The Postmaster and The Conclusion: “Tagore reveals the unequal social structure that oppresses women, on another, he creates courageous women who challenge tradition”.  Tagore wrote about social inequality focusing on the role of women in the late 19th and early 20t century.   The kind that Arundhati Roy says achieved much for women.

We are at a juncture where women are making themselves known as equal humans requiring equal dignity, opportunity and returns.  As Frances McDormand – winner at this year’s Oscars – for the best actress in a leading role said: “we all have stories to tell” subsuming her message in two words: “inclusion rider”.  Inclusion rider is a stipulation that actors and actresses can ask (or demand) to have inserted into their contracts, which would require a certain level of diversity among a film’s cast and crew.

Simply put, women are fighting for gender equality and freedom from abuse, manipulation and discrimination.  The United Nations says: “today, gender inequality is rife: 1 in 3 women experience violence in their lifetime; 830 women die every day from preventable pregnancy-related causes; and only 1 in 4 parliamentarians worldwide are women. It will be 2086 before we close the gender pay gap if present trends continue with no action”. UN Women Executive Director, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, said: “We know that healthy societies include a wide mix of voices, yet millions of women around the world are being silenced and their potential cramped. The current solidarity movements must be a tipping point for accountability; an end to impunity and the cyclical poverty of women in both rural and urban areas. Lively political activism from both men and women must target change for those who need it most”.

Here’s my take.

The operative words of the Executive Director’s message are “women around the world are being silenced and their potential cramped”.  The issue here is “who is cramping women’s potential and silencing them?”  Richard Wrangham and Dale Person in their book Demonic Males say: “In September 1980 the world’s largest captive colony of chimpanzees consisted of four adult males and nine adult females at the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands.  They shared a big island, had excellent care and lots of food.  But even so, their social life was far from relaxed.  Just like chimpanzees in the wild, the males fought to be number one.  In a cycle that had been going on for at least four years, each of the three top males had already been the alpha at least once, and each had been deposed after the other two ganged up against him.”

It doesn’t take much for one to conclude that chimpanzee politics is very much alive in the human world today.  The authors go on: “sexual selection, the evolutionary process that produces sex differences, has a lot to answer for. Without it, males wouldn’t possess dangerous bodily weapons and a mindset that sanctions violence…”

Now let us turn to women.  Simone de Beauvoir, in her book The Second Sex inquires what is a woman? and quotes one commentator who answers: Tota mulier in utero (woman is a womb).  This of course is a ludicrous  misconception which  is like saying “man is a penis”.  These are both equipment of the female and male respectively and should by no means define them.

Yuval Noah Hariri in his celebrated and much acclaimed book Sapiens, dispels the myth that men wield more power because they are physically stronger and have dominated women over centuries of time.  Hariri says “For example, men often simply aren’t stronger, and women are often more resistant to hunger, fatigue and disease. Also, weedy politicians boss beefy cleaners and barmen around the House of Commons – physical strength is in fact very rarely related to social power. Women are often stereotyped as better manipulators and appeasers than men and are famed for their superior ability to see things from the perspective of others,” suggesting that women have the innate ability to be leaders and bosses.

Hariri also dispels the myth that women loose out because they have to invest time to bring up children: “being the main caretaker means that you have more incentive to forge ties with other people, that you are more concerned to insure social harmony and adequate food-supply, and that you have more to lose from wars and plagues. Arguably, a mother of three should therefore be far more interested in politics than a carefree male bachelor”.

“We are used to the separation of the political sphere from “domestic” issues, but this is a result of patriarchy. It is not a law of nature that such a separation must exist. In bonobo society, for example, bonobo females are also the main caretakers of children, yet precisely because of that, they are politically dominant.”

I agree with Tagore, Hariri and Roy and believe that women have achieved much and are beginning to realize their equality and immense potential.  To women like Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Emma Watson and Priyanka Chopra the word “feminism” is not against men but against women, as it creates a mindset that institutionalises inequality and calls for equality.  Women have always been equal.  It is now for up to them to change the mistaken bar room mindset of the virile testosterone ridden male.  They have the courage to do it.

'We are soldiers! We will save you': how Boko Haram tricked Dapchi schoolgirls

School staff and locals describe events leading to kidnapping of boarding school girls in north-east Nigeria
(From left) Fatima Abdu, 14, Zahra Bukar, 13, Fatima Bukar, 13, and Yagana Mustapha, 15, Government Girls Technical College in from Dapchi, who escaped the Boko Haram attack. Photograph: Aminu Abubakar/AFP/Getty Images

Isaac Abraak in Dapchi and Ruth Maclean West Africa correspondent Thu 8 Mar 2018 14.33 GMT

Evening was falling and hundreds of students were preparing to break the fast observed every Monday at the girls’ boarding school in the small Nigerian town of Dapchi.

Watching them get ready to eat reminded Usman Mohammed, a school security guard, that it was time for his evening prayers. It was a school night like any other. Until suddenly it wasn’t.

'We are soldiers! We will save you' how Boko Haram tricked Dapchi schoolgirls.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Over 500 Canadian doctors protest raises, say they're being paid too much (yes, too much)

Photo by Caiaimage/Robert Daly

Catherine Clifford -

 Tue, 6 March 2018
In Canada, more than 500 doctors and residents, as well as over 150 medical students, have signed a public letter protesting their own pay raises.

"We, Quebec doctors who believe in a strong public system, oppose the recent salary increases negotiated by our medical federations," the letter says.

The group say they are offended that they would receive raises when nurses and patients are struggling.

 

"These increases are all the more shocking because our nurses, clerks and other professionals face very difficult working conditions, while our patients live with the lack of access to required services because of the drastic cuts in recent years and the centralization of power in the Ministry of Health," reads the letter, which was published February 25.

"The only thing that seems to be immune to the cuts is our remuneration," the letter says.

Canada has a public health system which provides "universal coverage for medically necessary health care services provided on the basis of need, rather than the ability to pay," the government's website says.

The 213 general practitioners, 184 specialists, 149 resident medical doctors and 162 medical students want the money used for their raises to be returned to the system instead.

"We believe that there is a way to redistribute the resources of the Quebec health system to promote the health of the population and meet the needs of patients without pushing workers to the end," the letter says.

"We, Quebec doctors, are asking that the salary increases granted to physicians be canceled and that the resources of the system be better distributed for the good of the health care workers and to provide health services worthy to the people of Quebec."

A physician in Canada is paid $260,924 ($339,000 Canadian) for clinical services by the government's Ministry of Health per year on average, according to a report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information published in September 2017. On average, a family physician is paid $211,717 ($275,000 Canadian) for clinical services and a surgical specialist is paid $354,915 ($461,000 Canadian), according to the same report.

This is total gross pay, however, and does not take into account overhead each doctor pays to operate, as the Canadian Institute for Health Information is careful to point out to CNBC Make It.

In May 2016, one physician publicly broke down the cost of running his family practice, and though he brought in $231,033 ($300,000 Canadian), he was left with $136,906 ($177,876 Canadian) after subtracting his business expenses — but before taxes and employment benefits are taken out.

The cost of medical school in Canada is subsidized by provincial governments, according to The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. The cost varies depending on whether a student is a Canadian citizen, permanent resident or foreign student and the particular school. For Canadian citizens or permanent residents, tuition for the first year of medical school ranges from $2567 ($3,334 Canadian) to $20,064 ($26,056 Canadian), according to The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada's website.

The same group, the Médecins Québécois pour le Régime Public (MQRP), that published the aforementioned public letter, also published a letter on February 17 opposing $500 million worth of pay increases for specialist doctors. The group called the pay increase "indecent."

And on February 1, the MQRP published a letter denouncing working conditions of nurses. "The nurses are exhausted by a heavy workload. They argue that the chronic lack of staff and the fatigue caused by repeated overtime, sometimes mandatory, for lack of replacement of the team, have an impact on the safety of patient care," the letter says.

Maithri admitted to saving Gotabaya

By Dr. Vickramabahu Karunaratne-2018-03-08

Some analysts say the power struggle between President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe ended with both being badly bruised, but the conflict also exposed the limitations of their long-term political strategies. It gave in to the hands of Sinhala Buddhist racism a bogus victory to arouse Sinhala plebeians and create violence in the country.

However, people cannot easily forget that in the run-up to the 10 February Local Government elections the differences within the Yahapalana coalition deepened and Maithri declared that his Government was more corrupt than the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime.

In sharp contrast, Ranil desisted from criticizing the junior coalition partner and even moved to rein-in his United National Party (UNP) young bucks who tried to snipe at Maithripala.

Ranil was backed by the Leader of the Opposition. That neutralized the situation. For a democrat what were at stake were not just the 341 Local Government bodies. In reality what was at stake was the General Election of 2020. If democracy prevails and things flow without change of Constitution a new President must be in office by January 2020, while the earliest a parliamentary election can be held is February 2020. Many believe that Mahinda is not interested in a presidential election for obvious reasons. However, the majority in his Pohottuwa crowd believe that Gotabaya is going to be the candidate from their side.

On the other hand both Ranil and Maithri may be persuaded by their respective lobbies to contest. Many believe Maithri is hoping to be the SLFP candidate at the next presidential election despite Sirisena having declared at the beginning of his five-year tenure that he will not seek re-lection. The Local Government election result was a bolt that not only brought activists on both sides of Yahapalanaya down to earth, but also sparked a blame game; not so much on bread and butter issues, but on their political maneuverings that may have backfired.

With his experience as a leader, Ranil faced the set back with confidence. In his first press conference after the local council elections, he said the main reason for the setback was their failure to prosecute corrupt members of the former regime. He, explaining further, said the main allegation against his UNP Government was its failure on the law and order front while the cost of living and the effects of a drought and floods had also reduced this party's vote drastically.

Pressure exerted by President

Former Law and Order Minister Sagala Ratnayake readily took the blame and said he was willing to be relieved of that portfolio.

However, political insiders say Ratnayake was barred from taking action due to the pressure exerted by the President. He and Ranil would not have protected former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and other criminals without the interference of the President. The LG election results showed that Maithri's Gotabaya Protection Strategy had clearly failed. Hence, it is incorrect to say that Ranil was hoping that by keeping Gotabaya a free man the UNP could split Sirisena's Sri Lanka Freedom Party. Clearly with minority votes on his side Ranil could win against Maithri without using Gotabaya as a third candidate, in a three-cornered presidential election. The 10 February result clearly showed that Maithri plus Pohottuwa is much less than UNP and the rest put together. It is Maithri, who played the Gotabaya card. He admitted in January that he saved Gotabaya despite having repeatedly denied he ever blocked the prosecution of the one-time de facto Head of State under brother Mahinda.

Maithri loyalists obviously believe Gotabaya could be a useful ally to rally hard-line Sinhala-Buddhists within the splintered Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and eventually to consolidate the leadership of the party. By declaring that he saved Gotabaya from being arrested, it is clear Maithri in January was sending an indirect message to such voters that he was the man who saved their Sinhala racist chandiya and therefore to support him at the local polls. At the same time, Maithri opened attacks on the UNP, but this strategy had an utterly negative effect. Instead of persuading Mahinda loyalists to switch sides and support him, he ended up supporting the arguments of the former President that the UNP was more corrupt than them. The votes polled by the Maithri group were equivalent to what the UNP lost compared to their performance at the August 2015 polls. Hence, one can argue that this shows Maithri did not take any SLFP votes, but only managed to split the UNP. Also in the process, Maithri had delivered the SLFP Sinhala racist base to Mahinda's new party, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) the Pohottuwa.

Track Record Of TNA – A Sad Saga

the three musketeers of the TNA

By Karikalan S. Navaratnam  –MARCH 7, 2018

Karikalan S. Navaratnam

“But I don’t have a very good track record with royalty. My dress fell off in front of Prince Charles at the Prince’s Trust, so I’m just living up to my reputation.” – Kate Bush, British Singer

The UNP has suffered severe losses at the Local Authority Elections. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has likewise sustained significant setbacks, not only electorally, but politically as well. The losses of the TNA (read,  ITAK, the prima donna, calling all the shots in the Alliance) are not sporadic; but seem pervasive across the entire electoral landscape of the Tamil heartland  in the North-East.Compromising on core ideals whilst cohabiting with the Sirisena-Ranil government has cost the TNA/ITAK  dearly.

Breach of Trust

At the dawn of New Year, TNA leader Mr. Sampanthan had found it propitious to bluff his way through an interview with the Indian daily, Hindu. (The Hindu, 03 Jan.2018 – “We can’t despair, we can’t abandon things ,says Sri Lanka’s R. Sampanthan”). Sampanthan had. Inter alia, asserted that the TNA “made the correct decision in backing Mr. Siriena” at the Presidential Election in 2015. Nobody in the Tamil community had ever questioned TNA decision on that count.  Our complaint is not about backing Sirisena at the Presidential Election; but about backtracking on the post-Election promises. compromising on the fundamental tenets of the ITAK and, in sum, about the breach and betrayal of the Tamil people’s trust.

The Three Musketeers

TNA leadership cannot keep their eyes closed and assume that everything is  hunky dory about the Tamil issue. The electoral losses should have brought them to their senses. If, on the contrary, the ill-fortune has  not dampened their sanguine enthusiasm in contumaciously consorting with  sleazy Southern partners, it lies in the logic of history that the TNA/ITAK may  slowly sink into oblivion. To some of us, it will be a very painful prospect. Mr.Ranil Wickremesinghe  had since admitted his  missteps and accepted responsibility for the UNP debacle. Where are the three musketeers of the TNA – Sampanthan, Sumanthiran and Senathirajah –  whose  post-war  polemic and gimmicks have led the Tamil people down the slippery  slope ?. Their silence on the electoral losses is deafening. 

Corrective Steps Needed

Mr. Sampanthan had, in parliament, made a post-election statement, targeting the ethnic majority audience and his speech merits a round of applause. In regard  to the Tamils the trio, collectively or individually, ought to admit “nostra culpa”/ “mea culpa”. Further, the revisionist leadership should take concrete corrective steps to mend their wayward escapades and regain their ideological roots.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (George Santayana?) This pithy aphorism serves to explain the rationale for TNA/ITAK’s  electoral reverses. Ever since it was founded in Dec. 1949, the ITAK (a.k.a, as Federal Party) had incrementally eroded the voter base of the ACTC (All Ceylon Tamil Congress) led by Mr.G.G. Ponnambalam, accusing the latter as an appendage/proxy of UNP. Thus, ITAK had, eventually, dislodged the ACTC from its primacy and emerged as the dominant voice of the Tamils. ITAK had nurtured and nourished its image as an uncompromising, radical anti-Establishment entity, passionately committed to the Tamil nationalist cause.

“Hath Havula”  National Government

Following the March 1965 General Elections, both the  ITAK and the ACTC became constituents of the “Hath Havula” coalition government, ostensibly designated as “National government”, under Mr. Dudley  Senanayake (whose UNP won only 66 seats and the SLFP 41 seats in the 151-seats Assembly). Since the ITAK mores enjoined  the elected M.P.s not to accept ministerial positions, Mr. M. Tiruchelvam  Q.C. of the ITAK was appointed a Senator and sworn in as Minister of Local Government.

Joint opposition played ‘communal card’ 

(A digression may be warranted)  In an attempt to oust the government, the  Joint opposition (SLFP-LSSP-CP) played the incendiary ‘communal card’ accusing  the UNP of entering into a secret pact with ITAK leader S.J.V. Chelvanayakam. Their campaign theme was that Dudley had agreed to a Tamil Federal state and thus had paved the way for separatism. The crass campaign slogan was, “Dudleyge Bade Masala Vade”.  The UNP-ITAK relationship ruptured soon and, in Nov.1968, Minister Tiruchelvam was obliged to resign. However, until 1970, ITAK continued to extend critical support to the government. Typically, the style and substance of Rajapakses’ post-2015 manoeuvres to regain their lost kingdom  – and their ultra-nationalist slogans to seduce the Sinhala-Buddhist constituency – tend to recall the 1965-70 scenario and the stratagem of the SLFP-led United Front to oust Dudley government.

ITAK paid heavy penalty

The ITAK paid a heavy penalty for cohabiting with the UNP.   At the May 1970 Parliamentary Elections ITAK  heavyweights, Dr.E.M.V. Naganathan (Nallur) Amirthalingam (Vaddukoddai), S.M. Rasamanickam (Paddiruppu) suffered defeat at the hands of nondescripts. Even in some electorates where the ITAK managed to win, they scraped through by a measly majority – Jafffna (by 56 votes), Mannar (69), Point Pedro (315).

Read More