A village in danger of erasure

Maysam, 14, proudly gives a tour of al-Walaja village. “I love to be outside,” she says.

Anne Paq- 23 April 2018

Te picturesque Palestinian village of al-Walaja, located between Jerusalem and Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank, is known for its verdant landscape, agricultural terraces and numerous springs.
But over the past seven decades, most of al-Walaja’s land has been taken away from its approximately 2,000 residents. Now, the United Nations warns, the future of the village is in grave danger.

Almost all of al-Walaja’s population are registered as refugees with UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine refugees. The village was among the hundreds of Palestinian communities destroyed in the period before and after the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948.

During that period, some residents relocated to the West Bank, then controlled by Jordan, now under Israeli military occupation, where they built homes that became the current al-Walaja village.

Others left to Jordan, where they remained. Most of the land belonging to the old village became off limits to residents after 1948, as it fell on the Israeli side of the armistice demarcation known as the Green Line.

When Israel illegally annexed Jerusalem following its occupation of the West Bank in 1967, half of the land of the new village of al-Walaja was subsumed within Israel’s expanded Jerusalem municipal boundaries.

Al-Walaja’s residents were never informed of this, and with few exceptions were not issued Jerusalem ID cards, only West Bank IDs, according to UNRWA.

Palestinians who hold West Bank IDs are forbidden from entering Jerusalem without a permit from the Israeli military.

This means that for some of al-Walaja residents, their presence in their own homes is deemed illegal by Israel. It also prevents them from building “legally” without a rarely granted Israeli permit.

Israel continues to encroach on al-Walaja’s remaining land. The construction of Gilo and Har Gilo settlements, and Israel’s West Bank wall, currently underway, has left residents unable to access their land.

When completed, the wall will totally surround al-Walaja, and will likely force many residents to leave so that they can access their workplaces and services like healthcare and education outside the village.

Anne Paq is a French photographer and co-author of the award-winning web documentary Obliterated Families. She is a member of the Activestills photo collective.

Last year Israel built a barbed-wire fence, several meters high, separating the residents of al-Walaja from their agricultural lands.

Israel’s wall, when completed, will encircle the entire village.

When Israel built the new fenced section of its barrier last year, the home of Omar Hajajleh and his family was cut off from the rest of al-Walaja. The home is connected to the village by a tunnel with a metal gate.

The settlement of Gilo continues to encroach on al-Walaja’s land while village residents are effectively banned by Israel from building.

In the foreground is a new road built by Israel on al-Walaja land and used by the military as an access road along the route of the wall.

The entrance of Har Gilo settlement, built on al-Walaja’s land.

Ein Haniya Spring was long used by villagers, especially in the spring and summer, for both recreational and for agricultural purposes. Israel has fenced it off, as seen here, preventing al-Walaja residents from accessing it.

The spring is a feature of a new Jerusalem municipality park established in part on the lands of original al-Walaja. Because they hold West Bank IDs, village residents will need to apply to the Israeli military for permission to visit the park.

A photo from July 2007 shows one of the old pools at Ein Haniya Spring.

An Israeli in military uniform takes photos at Ein Haniya Spring.

One of the new information signs for the site makes no mention of the village of al-Walaja that was ethnically cleansed in 1948. Instead it states that the “remains of the church and the spring belong to the Armenian Patriarchate.”

Israeli forces have destroyed four homes belonging to al-Walaja’s Abu Khaira family in five years.
This photo shows the aftermath of one such demolition in 2017; graffiti on the ruins is an image of Bassel al-Araj, a prominent activist and writer from the village who was killed by Israeli forces last year.

The most recent demolition, of a home still under construction, occurred on 29 March. Maysaa Abu Khaira told The Electronic Intifada that when her family received a phone call warning them that the Israeli army was coming, they and their neighbors stood in front of the bulldozer to try to prevent the demolition.

“My daughter, who is 15, was pushed by a female soldier and I pushed her back. She was very angry and shouted, ‘If you hadn’t seen Ahed Tamimi do it, you wouldn’t do that!’ They beat my husband and brother with their guns and used pepper spray and tear gas.”

The family had spent approximately $20,000 on the home that was demolished last month.

A photo from April 2010 shows Bassel al-Araj being arrested by Israeli forces during a direct action to stop the building of the wall on al-Walaja land. He was slain by Israeli forces during a raid on a home in al-Bireh, near the West Bank city of Ramallah, in early 2017. Israel claimed that there was a firefight before al-Araj was killed.

For Land Day, which Palestinians commemorate each year on 30 March, villagers, joined by residents from neighboring areas, planted olive trees in al-Walaja.

Israel has uprooted or damaged hundreds of almond, olive, fig, apricot and grape trees to make way for its wall that it is building on village land, according to UNRWA, “depriving families of an important source of food and income.”

Some 4,000 to 5,000 years old, al-Walaja’s celebrated al-Badawi tree, seen in the foreground here in front of Israel’s wall and a military access road, is among the oldest living olive trees in the world, if not the oldest.

“This is our land. We will stay here and we are going to defend it. We are going to stay and die here,” said villager Ali Khalil al-Araj, 50, on Land Day.

One in five financial institutions consider cryptocurrency trading, survey says

FILE PHOTO: Representations of the Ripple, Bitcoin, Etherum and Litecoin virtual currencies are seen on a PC motherboard in this illustration picture, February 13, 2018. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo

APRIL 24, 2018

LONDON (Reuters) - One in five financial institutions is considering trading cryptocurrencies within the next 12 months, a survey published by Thomson Reuters on Tuesday found.

Among those respondents who said they were willing to trade cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, the best known of the digital coins, 70 percent said they were planning to start trading in the next three to six months, the survey showed.

The survey covered more than 400 clients across Thomson Reuters Corp TRI.O (TRI.N) platforms including large asset managers, hedge funds and trading desks at the biggest banks. Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters, provides data and news to the financial services industry.

Retail interest in the buying and selling of digital coins exploded last year after prices skyrocketed, and institutional involvement has been predicted to grow, despite regulatory warnings that cryptocurrencies are highly risky and prone to scams.

Thomson Reuters Corp39.76

TRI.NNEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE

+0.11(+0.28%)

• TRI.N

Banks are examining client interest and several hedge funds have tried their hand trading virtual currencies.

Large falls in cryptocurrency prices this year, however, have encouraged critics to warn again that the market is a bubble and that investors should stay away.

The survey was the first conducted by Thomson Reuters so it was not possible to gauge how institutional appetite for crypto trading has changed.

Thomson Reuters is the parent company of Reuters News.

Merkel Has Disastrously Bungled Her Relationship With Trump

The chancellor’s approach has been typical of German foreign policy: moralistic, hypocritical — and completely ineffective.

The wax figures of U.S. President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are pictured in Christmas-themed sweaters at the Grevin Wax Museum in Paris on Dec. 1, 2017. (Bertrand Guay/AFP/Getty Images)

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

 | APRIL 24, 2018, 7:00 AM

This week, the leaders of France and Germany make back-to-back visits to Washington. On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump will honor his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, with his first state dinner; three days later, he will meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. High up on both leaders’ agendas will be trade, with the European exemption from U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs set to expire on May 1, and the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump has insisted European leaders “fix” by May 12.

But beyond specific policy disagreements, Trump has presented a fundamental challenge for continental Europe’s two most important powers — a challenge to which France and Germany have responded very differently. The two approaches, which can essentially be boiled down to French pragmatism versus German petulance, are entirely characteristic of their respective political cultures. One of the two approaches – likewise characteristically – has proved far less effective.

From the moment Trump’s shocking election victory was announced in November 2016, the response of German officialdom, media, and the public has been a mix of moralism and hysteria. “Germany and America are connected by values of democracy, freedom and respect for the law and the dignity of man, independent of origin, skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views,” Merkel said in a statement the day after the election, adding, “I offer the next President of the United States close cooperation on the basis of these values.” Merkel was, in essence, presenting a qualified and conditional olive branch to the incoming American president, whose erratic behavior and incendiary rhetoric on the campaign trail indeed raised troubling questions about his commitment to the shared values of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

At a campaign rally the following year, Merkel delivered an even blunter message. “The era in which we could fully rely on others is over to some extent,” she told a Munich beer hall after attending a G7 summit where both Trump and Brexit loomed large. “We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands — naturally in friendship with the United States of America, in friendship with Great Britain. … But we have to know that we Europeans must fight for our own future and destiny.”

Merkel has been relatively restrained among German leaders. “Trump is the pioneer of a new authoritarian and chauvinist international movement,” her then-Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel declared the day after Trump’s victory. Gabriel, a Social Democrat, would later broaden his criticism beyond the mere person of the president, affirming that “even after Trump leaves the White House, relations with the U.S. will never be the same.”

In the months after Trump’s election, a narrative began to emerge among the global chattering class that, with the United States now having gone the way of “America First,” Germany, and Merkel personally, had assumed the mantle of “leader of the free world.” Given Germany’s paltry military expenditure and aversion to using force, this was always a fantasy. As the German journalist Clemens Wergin put it, his country “talks the talk, but it hardly even tries to walk the walk” when it comes to defending the liberal world order from its antagonists.

But some in Germany, goaded on by the unpredictability and boorishness of Trump, seem to have believed their own good press. Last February, the influential weekly Der Spiegel produced a sanguinary cover image of Trump decapitating the Statue of Liberty, which the artist claimed represented “the beheading of democracy.” Giving voice to decades-old yearning for “emancipation” from American hegemony, two prominent editors at Die Zeit published an essay calling for “a new foreign policy after Atlanticism” in which they complained that “the U.S. can no longer and will no longer be the stabilizer and protector of Europe,” as “the former guarantor of freedom and democracy is itself democratically out of control.” Such feelings are backed by public opinion; a recent poll found that 79 percent of Germans consider Trump a greater threat to world peace than Russian President Vladimir Putin.

If the collective German response to Trump can been characterized by its sanctimony, France’s has been marked by maturity. Trump is hardly more popular among the French than Germans (14 percent vs. 11 percent), but such dislike for the American president has not led to drastic and categorical reassessments of the Franco-American relationship. Rather than lecturing Trump (and, by implication, America), Macron’s strategy has been to hug the president close — inviting him and his wife, Melania, to Paris for Bastille Day celebrations — and express disagreements frankly when necessary. (Macron’s offer of millions of euros in “Make Our Planet Great Again” grants for American scientists to relocate to France certainly did not go unnoticed in Washington.) With Macron, Trump seems to recognize, despite their ideological differences, a fellow political revolutionary who similarly defied all the naysayers in upending an exhausted and corrupt political order.

There are, of course, deeper and more substantive reasons for the divergent French and German attitudes toward the American president. On the issues of trade and defense spending — two bugbears for Trump — France finds itself in America’s good graces. The United States has a relatively small trade deficit with France, and Paris spends over 2 percent of its GDP on defense, the minimum amount recommended for NATO members. America’s large trade deficit with Germany, on the other hand, has been a source of constant irritation to Trump, as has its low defense spending. Moreover, Merkel’s decision to permit over a million migrants and refugees to enter Germany created the impression in Trump’s mind that she stands foursquare against him on the issue that defines his political career: the defense of national borders.

As a country that was defeated in war, rebuilt, and militarily occupied by America, Germany has a relationship with the United States that is far more complicated than that of its neighbor across the Rhine. Like a big brother, America has been simultaneously loved, feared, and hated by Germany in the more than 70 years since the end of World War II. Germany remains dependent on the United States for its security, and as in any relationship, dependency can breed resentment. Popular German attitudes toward America are like mood swings, with bitter lows (the eight years of George W. Bush) followed by soaring highs (Hope! — Das Obama Musical was a real thing). In Donald Trump, Germans feel that they have lost their illusions about America. The French, by contrast, never quite romanticized America as the Germans did; having always jealously maintained a Gaullist “independence” and room for maneuver in foreign affairs and military policy, they possessed fewer illusions to lose. While the Germans loved Barack Obama for his grace and multilateral instincts, he was a letdown to the hard-nosed French, who were obliged to call off retaliatory air strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2013 after the U.S. president refused to enforce his red line on chemical weapons use.

The German penchant for following rules is not just a cultural stereotype; as an export nation dependent upon the United States for its security, Germans care deeply about the rules-based liberal order, and their criticisms of Trump usually take the form of frustration and incomprehension at his flagrant disregard for its norms. But Germans can afford to be sentimental about the liberal world order because they do so little to maintain it. If Germans love to speak of rules, the French better understand that enforcing them requires the power to do so. “In the case of the France–U.S. relationship, cooperation has been promoted politically as a way to pursue common strategic interests rather than as the realization of a moral and normative bond,” write Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer and Martin Quencez of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “As a result, French leaders have learned to be relatively comfortable working with U.S. presidents who were deeply unpopular in France.”

The pragmatic versus petulant approaches to dealing with Trump mirror the ways both countries responded to another American outrage: National Security Agency espionage conducted against their politicians and citizens. In 2015, when WikiLeaks, drawing on documents obtained from the fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden, revealed that the United States had spied on French presidents, the reaction in Paris was a collective shrug. The French understand that this is part of life for great powers — of which France is certainly one. The French attitude toward Trump is not unlike their nonchalance at NSA spying: If Americans decide to elect a boorish television game show host as president, they will deal with him and not feel the need to whine and cry about it — and it’s not like the French themselves aren’t used to prima donna presidents.

Germany’s response to the NSA revelations could not have been more different. The press, public, and politicians demanded that the Americans be punished, a parliamentary committee was formed to investigate NSA practices, and the Berlin CIA station chief was expelled. This was, to put it simply, a hysterical overreaction, made even more apparent when compared to the lack of public outrage over Russia’s hacking Bundestag computer servers in 2015. Whatever one feels about Trump, it is preposterous to think that he poses a greater threat to world peace than the former KGB thug whose regime perpetrated the first armed annexation of territory on the European continent since World War II, backs Assad in Syria, and allegedly used a chemical nerve agent on British soil.

The result of these various dynamics is that Macron has eclipsed Merkel as Europe’s chief interlocutor with the United States, a rather momentous development considering how the German chancellor occupied that role for the full duration of the Obama presidency. There is risk in assuming this position, however, as illustrated by the experience of Merkel’s predecessor in the job: Tony Blair.

The British prime minister’s prominent part in selling George W. Bush’s Iraq War “made Blair, once [one] of the U.K.’s most popular politicians, one of its most reviled,” writes Yasmeen Serhan of The Atlantic. Thus far, it is difficult for Macron to point to any significant victories his approach has garnered, as Trump has broken with European prerogatives on climate, the Iran nuclear deal, trade, and moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

But it’s far from clear that Merkel’s more openly confrontational stance will be more productive. If anything, it has only aggravated Trump’s volatile temper and sensitivity to slights, real or perceived.

 It seems safe to say that Macron, watching Trump’s treatment of Merkel after returning to Paris, will have occasion to feel a very German emotion: schadenfreude.

Trump’s historic unpopularity is a big, important story

President Trump (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

THE MORNING PLUM:

By Greg Sargent April 24 at 10:47 AM

A new Gallup poll has some folks excitedly tweeting that President Trump’s reelection chances are similar to those of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton before him — both of whom, you may recall, did get reelected — but the more important story is what Gallup concludes about the depths of Trump’s historic unpopularity.

The poll finds that a solid majority — 59 percent — of Americans say Trump does not deserve to be reelected, vs. only 37 percent who say he does. But Gallup’s headline blares: “Trump’s Re-Elect Figures Similar to Those of Obama, Clinton.” And it’s true, as Gallup says, that these numbers are “essentially identical” to those of Clinton and Obama “at the time of the 1994 and 2010 midterm elections, respectively.”

But that comparison takes the current moment, which comes a little more than six months before the 2018 midterm elections, and compares it to the Obama and Clinton polling at around the time of Election Day. And, as Gallup notes, those numbers for Obama and Clinton led to truly huge midterm losses:

Clinton and Obama both saw their party suffer huge losses in their first midterm elections, when fewer than four in 10 voters thought they deserved re-election. In 1994, Democrats lost 53 seats in the House, and in 2010, they lost 63 seats.

If we take these Gallup numbers seriously, if Trump is still hovering at such a low reelection number this fall, then we may see Republicans sustain large midterm losses this time around (though for various structural reasons, such as gerrymandering, they might not be as large). As Nate Silver has suggested, Trump’s approval ratings appear to be remarkably steady through all kinds of news events, suggesting he may well still be mired in similar doldrums this fall.

What’s more, as Gallup reminds us today, if you look at Trump’s approval ratings, as opposed to the reelect numbers, those have steadily been worse than those of his recent predecessors — by sizable margins, in fact. So not only is Trump on track to face large midterm losses — he is also substantially less popular than those predecessors.

It is just way too early to say whether Trump is likely to get reelected, as Jonathan Bernstein explains. He could very well rise in popularity; or he might not; or he could fall further. But the depth of Trump’s current unpopularity is an important story beyond what it says about Trump’s political fortunes.

Because Trump has blown through so many norms, the question of whether the American public is rejecting him is a momentous one. Trump has embraced overt racism, xenophobia and authoritarianism, in the form of regular racial provocations, assaults on our institutions and the rule of law, and an unprecedented level of self-dealing that basically constitutes a big middle finger to the country. He has married all this to orthodox GOP economic priorities — indeed, as Brian Beutler says, the three pillars of Trump-era conservatism are self-enriching plutocracy, racism and authoritarianism.

The Washington Post editorial board offers a speech to President Trump that's more, shall we say, presidential than angry tweets. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

If that is so, then it is notable that majorities are rejecting all of those things. Obamacare repeal crashed and burned. The tax law passed, but it remains deeply unpopular. Majorities disapproved of Trump’s response to white supremacist violence in Charlottesville. Majorities sided with the “dreamers” against Trump and majorities reject Trump’s border wall and many of his demagogic arguments about immigration (though in fairness the polling is mixed on the thinly veiled Muslim ban). Big majorities still want Trump to release his tax returns. Large majorities support special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of both potential collusion with Russia, dismissing Trump’s claims of a “witch hunt,” and of Trump’s finances. The public has sided with the investigation and the rule of law, and against Trump.

Writing at Vox this week, Dylan Matthews noted that liberals and Democrats yearning for a decisive end to the Trump presidency that cleanses the country of its stain — such as impeachment — are likely to be disappointed. Instead we face a long, hard slog. But I would add an important nuance: Liberals and Dems across the country are responding to Trumpism with politics and organizing. It’s plausible that Trump’s racism and assaults on the rule of law are being widely understood as threats to the country, prompting high turnout and electoral organizing, even among normally less active voters and swing voters, that may be driven by a desire to reinvigorate our democracy against Trump’s degradation of it.

We don’t talk enough about the deep and widespread public rejection of Trumpism and what it means for the country and its future. Because so many of us got it wrong in 2016, a kind of defensive posture has set in that has rendered us reluctant to speculate on the meaning of polls indicating this rejection. By all means, caution is always in order when interpreting polling data. At the same time, this should not blind us to what is right there in plain sight at the end of our noses.

* PRUITT SETS LIMITS ON SCIENCE: The Post scoops that Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt is set to propose a new rulethat would limit what kind of science the EPA can use in writing agency regulations:

The rule, which Pruitt has described in interviews with select media over the past month, would only allow EPA to consider studies for which the underlying data are made available publicly. Advocates describe this approach as an advance for transparency, but critics say it would effectively block the agency from relying on long-standing, landmark studies linking air pollution and pesticide exposure to harmful health effects.

Because if there is one thing we’ve seen, it’s that this administration values good science and transparency above all else.

* GOP FRETS ABOUT SPECIAL ELECTION: Today is the special House election in Arizona’s 8th District. Republicans are nervous, even though they are all but certain to win, since Trump won here by more than 20 points:

Republicans are showing concern over the outcome. … This race is on no one’s list of seats that will determine control of the House. But the closer the margin, the more alarmed Republicans will be about the enthusiasm gap between the two parties going into November.

Even if the Democrat loses, a single-digit margin will continue to bode well for Dems in this fall’s contests.

* DEMS EYE GAINS IN ARIZONA: Politico reports that Republicans also worry that if Republican Debbie Lesko only wins narrowly in today’s special election, that could signal big Dem victories later in the Arizona senate and gubernatorial races:

“If Lesko wins by a slim margin in a district that overwhelmingly went for President Trump, it will mean statewide candidates are going to have a rough road to hoe,” said Dan Eberhart, a major Republican donor from Arizona … Chip Scutari, a Republican consultant in Arizona, said that a single-digit margin … would be “a wake-up call to Republican elected officials that this is a radically different off-year.”

The Arizona Senate race — along with Nevada and possibly Tennessee — is key to Dem chances of taking back the upper chamber.

* ARIZONA BECOMING A BATTLEGROUND STATE? CNN reports on the long game Democrats are playing:

State Democrats say [Democrat Hilal] Tipirneni’s race, if she can close the 21-point Trump gap significantly, also propels long-held hopes that Arizona is inching towards becoming a battleground state. Trump won the state by 3 points in 2016 and demographic shifts increasingly diversify the state year after year.

CNN also notes that Republicans have spent $1.1 million on this race, an amazing sum given Trump’s enormous margin.

* TRUMP’S PICK FOR VA CHIEF STALLED: The Post reports that Senate lawmakers have put Trump’s nomination of White House physician Ronny L. Jackson as head of Veterans Affairs on hold:

In addition to Jackson’s lack of management experience, the former combat surgeon had come under fire for his glowing appraisal of Trump’s health following his annual physical in January. Jackson said then that the president might live to the age of 200 with a healthier diet. In recent days, fresh concerns arose about Jackson’s management of the White House medical office, said the officials, who declined to provide details.

But Trump went with his gut, so what could possibly go wrong?

* WISCONSIN AS GROUND ZERO IN SENATE BATTLE:  The New York Times reports that Republicans and outside groups are pouring enormous sums into efforts to oust Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin in a state Trump won in 2016:

Donors from outside the state are spending twice as much money on the race so far as on any other Senate contest this year, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics …  The big spending [is] a measure of intensity on both sides to prevail in Wisconsin after … Trump shocked Democrats in 2016 … Democrats are bent on winning it back in 2020 — and getting Ms. Baldwin re-elected is a crucial step toward that goal.

Holding every one of these Senate seats in Trump states will be crucial if Dems are to have any shot at taking the Senate.

* GOP’S WAR ON BUDGETING AND EDUCATION: Paul Krugman notes that GOP tax cuts in multiple states have failed to produce magic explosions of revenues, leading to slashed teacher pay and numerous local strikes:

What happens when hard-line conservatives take over a state, as they did in much of the country after the 2010 Tea Party wave? They almost invariably push through big tax cuts. … tax cuts … sharply reduce revenue … what conservative state governments have mainly done is squeeze teachers themselves. … teachers, the people we count on to prepare our children for the future, are starting to feel like members of the working poor … And they can’t take it anymore.

It’s yet another way in which we’re still dealing with the lasting damage inflicted by the 2010 tea party takeover.

Windrush Generation: The scandal that shook Britain explained and debated in a Channel 4 News Special

24 Apr 2018

Watch live as the Windrush generation, campaigners and politicians discuss the scandal that shook the UK – as thousands of British citizens were faced with deportation.

Will death penalty for child rape be a deterrent ?

2018-04-24

Stung by world-wide condemnation for its callous indifference towards the rape and murder of an 8-year-old Kashmiri Muslim tribal girl by middle rung government officials, the Indian Prime Minister last week got an ordinance passed to enable courts to give death sentences on persons convicted of raping girls under the age of 12. 

The anger of the middle-class, which demonstrated across India, was doused by the Prime Minister’s dramatic action. 

But experts say a closer examination of the issues involved would reveal that the ordinance was either a knee-jerk reaction of a rattled government or a balm of temporary effectiveness meant to end a political crisis in a pre-election year. 

It was not a well-thought-out action plan to effectively curb rape, which has become a social problem. Veteran journalist and editor of ThePrint, Shekhar Gupta described the ordinance as “lollipop politics” to stop a baby from crying. Others picked holes in the measure which could make the ordinance difficult to implement. 
Lawyers have also pointed out that the measure was not even new. A stringent law allowing death penalty for rape has been in existence since 2013. 

In the wake of a countrywide outcry which followed the gang rape in Delhi in 2012 (the Nirbhaya case), the Manmohan Singh Government got Parliament to pass the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013 introducing the death penalty for the non-homicide offence of rape under IPC Sections 376E (for repeat offenders) and under 376A (for rape that reduces the victim to persistent vegetative state). 

Modi’s dramatic action immediately on return from CHOGM in London, has more to do with the fact that he and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are to face parliamentary elections in May 2019. 

In that context, the BJP Government could ill-afford to be accused of being silent, evasive or supportive of the despicable actions of its party men, political supporters or government employees.  

Modi’s dramatic action immediately on return from CHOGM in London, has more to do with the fact that he and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are to face parliamentary elections in May 2019

The rape and murder of 8-year-old Asifa Bano in Kathua was committed by a retired government officer and a serving police officer and the perpetrators were openly supported by BJP-affiliated organisations. They held demonstrations demanding a central government investigation because Jammu  and Kashmir Police were allegedly pandering to the Muslim majority in the State by wantonly naming Hindus as the accused. 

However, in other parts of India, the government’s inaction and insensitive actions of its supporters led to a rash of demonstrations across India which became international news drawing stinging comments from prestigious Western newspapers. IMF Chief Christine Lagarde had twice called upon Modi “to do more for women.” 

The Ordinance 

Under the latest ordinance, new fast-track courts are to be set up to deal with rape. Special forensic kits to deal with rape cases will be given to all police stations and hospitals. 

The minimum punishment in case of rape of women has been increased from seven years rigorous imprisonment (RI) to 10 years, extendable to life imprisonment. In case of rape of a girl under 16 years, the minimum punishment has been increased from 10 to 20 years, extendable to imprisonment for rest of life, which means jail term till the convict’s “natural life.” 

The punishment for gang rape of a girl below 16 years will invariably be imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict. But the punchline was that the death sentence was permissible for rape of girls under 12. 

Stringent punishment for rape of a girl under 12 years has been provided with the minimum jail term being 20 years which may go up to life in prison or death sentence. 

The ordinance also provides for speedy investigation and trial. The time limit for investigation of all cases of rape is two months. A six-month time period for the disposal of appeals in rape cases has also been prescribed. There will be no provision for anticipatory bail for a person accused of rape or gang rape of a girl under 16 years. 

Telling Statistics

According to the Indian National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), in 2016, of the 64,138 child rape cases before the courts under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 1,869 cases (or less than three per cent) had ended in conviction. 

In 34,650 out of 36,657 cases (94%), the offender was known to the victim. He was either a close family member, neighbour or an acquaintance. Therefore, social workers believe that many or most cases of rape are hushed up for the sake of family image or honour. And distressingly, the victims will not complain even to the family, if the offender were a close relation. 

Indian Supreme Court Counsel Vrinda Grover even goes to the extent of saying that if death sentence were the punishment and the offender was a relation or a close friend, fewer victims would complain, the consequences being severe. 

The rape and murder of 8-year-old Asifa Bano in Kathua was committed by a retired government officer and a serving police officer and the perpetrators were openly supported by BJP-affiliated organisations

Broader Perspective Needed

Given this reality, experts point to the need for a wider debate before any amendment of the criminal law is carried out to award death penalty for cases of child rape. They believe that the root of the problem lies in social mores, conditions and the highly inadequate legal and investigative system rather than the leniency of the law or the absence of death sentence. 

The system is sluggish. The POCSO Act provides for trials to be completed within a year. But at the end of 2016, 89 per cent of the cases were pending. Given the time-consuming legal process and poor conviction rate, death penalty will mean little to the vast majority of the victims, Grover says. 

She also points out that stringent time limits are already there. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013 states that in all cases of rape, “trial shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of two months” and that “investigation in relation to rape of a child may be completed within three months.” 

Grover argues that tweaking the laws to make them more severe would not help if investigation techniques continue to be old-fashioned and shoddy and judges were incompetent. 

“Judges are not trained to handle cases of child sexual assault and gender-based violence,” she points out. Mumbai-based human rights lawyer, Persis Sidhva adds that prosecutors do not know how to conduct rape cases and that even high-profile cases take too long to conclude. 

Additionally, proposing fast-track courts does not help when the number of judges remains the same or if the prosecutors are not capable of handling such cases, she says. 

The minimum punishment in case of rape of women has been increased from seven years rigorous imprisonment (RI) to 10 years, extendable to life imprisonment. In case of rape of a girl under 16 years, the minimum punishment has been increased from 10 to 20 years, extendable to imprisonment for rest of life, which means jail term till the convict’s “natural life.” 

Verma Commission 

Following the rape and murder of a young lab assistant in a bus in New  Delhi in 2012, a committee set up under former Supreme Court Chief Justice J.S. Vermato suggested measures to curb the heinous crime. 

Significantly, the Verma panel did not recommend death penalty. It categorically stated that there is “considerable evidence that the deterrent effect of death penalty on serious crimes is actually a myth.” It also said “death penalty would be a regressive step in the field of sentencing and reformation.” 

Statistics support Verma’s contentions. The Working Group on Human Rights reported that the murder rate in India had declined consistently over the last 20 years despite a slowdown in execution of death sentences since 1980. 

The Clio-The Hindu study found the murder rate fallen from 4.3 in 1995 to 3.3 in 2013, even though the conviction rate was low. 

According to NCRB, 1,303 capital punishment verdicts were handed down in India between 2004 and 2013. But only three convicts were executed during this period. 

Hong Kong's 'cardboard grannies': the elderly box collectors living in poverty

A third of Hong Kong’s older people live in poverty. The city now has the longest life expectancy in the world. Photograph: SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Matthew Keegan-Tue 24 Apr 2018

Inadequate support for Hong Kong’s ageing population means for some older citizens, scavenging and selling boxes and scrap is the only way to scrape by
Miss Wong, 65, scavenges the streets of Hong Kong’s Sheung Shui area in search of disused cardboard to sell to local recycling plants. She starts her day at 7am and often works until 9pm, seven days a week. For her efforts, she receives about HK$41 (£3.60) per day.

Wong is one of an estimated thousand senior citizens nicknamed “cardboard grannies” who collect and sell waste boxes and other scrap across nine of the poorest districts in the city.

When the company Wong distributed promotional leaflets for closed down, she found herself unable to find other employment. With no savings, family support, sufficient pension or social security income, selling cardboard has become her only means of scraping by. “I ended up homeless because I didn’t have enough money to pay the rent,” says Wong. “Even a sub-divided flat costs around HK$4,000 per month and I didn’t have the money for that.”

Miss Wong, who earns about HK$41 (£3.60) selling cardboard to recycling plants. Photograph: Matthew Keegan

Cardboard grannies are one of the most visible indicators of Hong Kong’s struggle to support its rapidly ageing population. According to researchers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the city now has the longest life expectancy in the world. On average, men in Hong Kong live for 81.3 years and women for 87.3 years – beating other “blue zones” (regions with the oldest and healthiest people in the world) such as Japan and Italy.

 

Many elderly in the city don’t have any type of pension scheme because they were working class, low-income workers

Ng Wai-tung, Society for Community Organization

However, any sense of pride in the world’s longest life expectancy is overshadowed by the fact that one third of Hong Kong’s elderly live in poverty. Official figures from 2016 put the figure at 478,400 people aged 65 or over languishing below the poverty line, which is set at a monthly income of HK$3,800 (£345).

For one of the richest cities in the world, with a GDP per capitahigher than the UK, Germany and Japan, poverty has become an embarrassment. Public funds for the elderly are considered a pittance.

The government’s Old Age Living Allowance is currently the most popular cash assistance, which offers a monthly payment of up to HK$2,600. Such handouts are often dubbed “fruit money” as they are too meagre to pay for anything else. In addition, most of the subsidies are means tested, which many locals find degrading and a significant barrier to seeking help.

Critics have been campaigning for a universal state pension paid out to all regardless of their income, but this has yet to materialise. “In Hong Kong, although many grassroots organisations have been fighting for a non-means tested state retirement scheme for over 20 years, the Hong Kong government refuse to provide it,” says Ng Wai-tung of the Society for Community Organization.

“Currently, many elderly [people] in the city don’t have any type of pension scheme because they were working class, low-income workers, and they received less protection from the system.”

Hong Kong has the highest levels of income disparity in the developed world. Photograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Supporting the rapidly ageing population is an ongoing concern, with the Hong Kong government estimating that the number of people aged 65 or older will double to 2.37 million in 2036, accounting for 31.1% of the population. This is coupled with a dwindling fertility rate and projections that the city state is on track to lose 14% of its labour force over the next 50 years, meaning fewer working-age people to support elderly people.

However, at present, the government’s coffers are abundant. In February the Hong Kong government announced a HK$138bn fiscal surplus for the year with the city’s fiscal reserves expected to reach HK$1.092tn. Many feel now is the time to address poverty.

“We are fortunate as a city to have money and budget surplus. We have to think out of the box because the issues around low fertility rates and longest life expectancy have arisen so fast,” says Prof Paul Yip, chair of population health at the University of Hong Kong. “I don’t think the government has put aside much time to deal with it – we have to face the problems and respond to them in a timely manner and while we have the money.”

The Hong Kong government estimates that the number of people aged 65 or older will double to 2.37 million by 2036. Photograph: Borja Sanchez Trillo/Getty Images

In the Kwai Chung area, 67-year-old Miss Lan Tsz also collects cardboard to sell to recyclers, often working from 6.30am to 11pm at night, despite suffering from arthritis in her legs. She says her only immediate hope is avoiding government workers, who regularly confiscate her cardboard and belongings.

“The environmental and food hygiene department comes and confiscates my cardboard twice a week,” says Lan Tsz. “They even try to resell it themselves.”

Under existing laws Lan Tsz and her peers may be prosecuted for obstructing public space or unlicensed hawking. In a much-publicised case last year, an elderly cardboard collector in Hong Kong was arrested by officers after she was caught selling a cardboard box without a license for HK$1 to a domestic helper. The arrest resulted in public outcry with the authorities eventually dropping the charges. The incident was widely condemned as evidence of the state’s failure to protect its older and most vulnerable people from poverty.

“Although we understand the officers are exercising the law, the issue highlights a complete lack of respect for the work that these grannies do,” says Tang Wing-him, a ministry officer from the Hong Kong School of Poverty Caring.

 Miss Lan Tsz, who says environmental and food hygiene officials confiscate her cardboard twice a week. Photograph: Matthew Keegan

Tang says these incidents are not isolated. He recalls another recent example when the same government department confiscated a pushcart from one of the cardboard collectors for unlawfully occupying public space. The collector was then told that she would have to pay a HK$1,500 fine to get it back. Such incidents have left grassroots organisations determined to find workable solutions.

“The government regards what the cardboard collectors do as picking up rubbish which they deem unlawful, consequently there is little to no protection in terms of health and safety for them,” says Tang. “They don’t view these grannies as official members of the recycling industry. I am actively working to get their work and contributions officially recognised so that they can receive proper wages, better protection and dignity.”

There are an estimated thousand ‘carboard grannies’ in the city state. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images

Amid rising life expectancies, cities around the world are looking at how to tackle poverty among senior citizens through employment. One example is a 60+ employment centre in Jerusalem, which aims to provide assistance to those who depend on small pensions and have been forced to re-enter the labour force in order to supplement their income. By increasing awareness among employers about the advantages of workers aged over 60, the centre aims to prevent poverty, reduce ageism and better integrate the elderly in a productive and meaningful life.

The desire to work and feel useful is a driving motivator for many of the cardboard collectors. “If I sit around and do nothing I will get ill,” says Lan Tsz. “As long as I remain healthy I will still pick up the cardboard.” This is coupled by a sense of pride in wanting to pay her own way. “I don’t want to live on social security – I prefer to try and be self sufficient. I have never taken any money from the government.”

Tang and other community workers are calling upon Hong Kong’s government to officially recognise the cardboard grannies’ work in the recycling industry so that they can receive benefits, better protection and a working environment where they don’t have to live in fear of having their cardboard confiscated – or worse, arrest.

“The government has to recognise the contribution that the elderly make in a rapidly ageing society,” says Tang. “My view is that the government has a responsibility to look after the retired population as a basic right. We don’t have a long-term vision to make Hong Kong a more age-friendly city.

Structural changes in our society need to occur for there to be real change. Before we can have an age-friendly city, we first need an age-friendly government.”

Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to join the discussion, and explore our archive here

‘Restoration of respect’: Human rights must be at forefront of Malaysia’s GE14

By Emma Richards | 24th April 2018 | @EmmaRichards85

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak delivers a speech on March 15, 2018. Source: Hafizie Shabudin/ Shutterstock

IN the lead up to the general election, candidates must work towards the “restoration of respect” and commit to the “protection of human rights,” as vulnerable groups continue to face persecution and civic space continues to shrink in Malaysia, Amnesty International said today.

Presenting their report, Malaysia: 8-Point Human Rights Agenda for GE14 Election Candidates, the rights group outlined eight human rights concerns they want parliament-seat candidates to place at the centre of their election campaign.

Amnesty International’s ‘Malaysia: 8-Point Human Rights Agenda for GE14 Election Candidates’, introduced in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia April 24, 22018. Source: Writers Own

Top of the list was freedom of expression and the implementation of restrictive laws that Amnesty says are used to “harass, detain and prosecute peaceful critics.”

Freedom of expression

Pointing specifically to the recently introduced Anti Fake News Act, the rights groups fears the law could mean a heavier crackdown on dissent as “offenders” face heavy fines and jail time. The fear of this will be enough to further suppress free speech, on top of the already restrictive existing legislation.

Those human rights defenders and peaceful dissenters who have already been targeted should be allowed their right to free movement, the group said, mentioning cartoonist Zunar by name as he is currently subject to a travel ban stopping him from leaving Malaysia.

Ending capital punishment and deaths in custody

The death penalty continues to be used in Malaysia and remains a contentious issue. 

Amnesty continues to push for the punishment to be abolished and for a moratorium on all executions to be implemented immediately while the procedure to abolish is being discussed in parliament.

“Although we welcome the government’s recent amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, it does little to bring Malaysia’s death penalty laws in line with international law and standards,” said Gwen Lee, Interim Executive Director, Amnesty International Malaysia.

“It still allows for the mandatory death penalty to be imposed in many other circumstances and provides for life imprisonment and the cruel punishment of a mandatory 15 lashes of whipping as the only available sentencing alternative.”

The treatment of those in detention is also of concern and election candidates should ensure each report is thoroughly investigated to determine cases of torture and inhumane treatment by police.

SEE ALSO: ‘Irregularities’ in electoral process deprive Malaysians of free and fair elections

To ensure this happens, candidates must push for an independent external police oversight body to take charge of complaints of misconduct, Lee said.

Over 1,600 deaths happened in custody in Malaysia between 2010 and February 2016. While many are down to natural causes, such as cancer, Lee believes many cases are a result of torture, and inhumane and degrading treatment.

Gwen Lee, Interim Executive Director of Amnesty International Malaysia, introducing the 8-point human rights agenda ahead of General Election 14. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia April 24, 22018. Source: Writers Own

Protecting individuals who seek refuge

The fair treatment of those in detention goes beyond those in police custody and also applies to vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers.

“Malaysia has a long-standing history of confining refugees such as those from Myanmar and Bangladesh in detention centres with appalling poor conditions as well as not providing them basic human rights such as education and employment,” Lee said.

SEE ALSO: Malaysia: Mahathir joins protest against electoral map changes before election

“In addition to this, individuals have been arrested and detained under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA) and subsequently extradited, to countries where they faced the risk of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.

“It is crucial for potential candidates to push to end such practices; and respect the international legal principle of non-refoulement,” she added.

Requests to protect LGBTI people and stop the “demonization” of this vulnerable community were also raised by Amnesty, who called for candidates to support the abolishment of laws criminalising consensual same-sex sexual conduct and those criminalising specific gender identities including laws against cross-dressing.

The eight-point agenda will be handed to every election candidate ahead of the May 9 polling day in the hope of placing human rights at the forefront of this election, Lee said.

“We believe that there is a significant opportunity for election candidates elected to parliament to bring positive changes to the human rights situation in Malaysia, and hope they will listen to our call.”