Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Sunday, December 30, 2018

2018 – The Year of Insecurity


by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne-
The statesman’s task is to hear God’s footsteps marching through history, and to try and catch on to his coattails as he marches past. ~ Otto von Bismarck
We have gone through a year of many facets and bounced from one to the other: from threats of fire and fury, to filial handshakes; from asylum seekers drowning at sea, to  leaders who grappled with clashing conflicts of populism and morality; from fear stricken communities and societies sacked by armies and terrorists to leaders who looked the other way with feckless insouciance; from populist marches to rising authoritarianism; from innocent women whose privacy was abused and eroded by oppressive technology, to their vain attempts at protecting their “secret places” from marauding thugs; from  mendacious big wigs who were impugned, to government shut downs; from parliaments in aggressive discord, to parliamentary decorum being violently abused by peoples’ representatives, resulting in bloodshed.
The insecurity spawned by these events has threatened democracy and encouraged populism, inequality and the deleterious aspects of the information revolution.  The ensuing chaos renders lessons from history – from the vicious hatred that followed the introduction of the printing machine causing witch hunts of innocent women, to fake news of the modern age catalysed by social media.  This cocktail of trends is further aggravated by economic decline and the sense of social insecurity faced by many around the world.  Ronald Inglehart, Professor at the University of Michigan writes in Foreign Affairs that: “The immediate cause of rising support for authoritarianism is immigration (and in the United States, rising racial equality). That reaction has been intensified by the rapid cultural change and declining job security…”  This trendline is dangerously close to the rise of fascism in the 1930s caused by similar circumstances of social insecurity and racial hatred.  Professor Inglehart suggests that political coalitions should emerge representing the 99 per cent of the people affected by the phenomenon of their own insecurity of sustenance, which, in a manner similar to post World War II when the axis powers were defeated, infused new hope in the people of the world and brought to bear a strengthened world democracy.
Liberal democracies are the result of modernization brought about initially by industrialization. This brought a certain sense of equality and security to society, which has been eroded over the past few decades where the rich have become richer and the poor, poorer.  Rosenbluth and Shapiro, in their book Responsible Parties: Saving Democracy from Itself   quote history when they say:
“A new gilded age has brought unprecedented wealth to the ultra rich and decades of wage stagnation for the great majority. The 2008 financial crisis caused millions their homes and savings, yet their governments bailed out big banks and paid multimillion-dollar bonuses to the executives who caused the mess”.   As a panacea, some of the wealthiest Americans advocate higher taxes for the rich and increased inheritance taxes that would help alleviate the exponential rise of inequality.  Thomas Piketty in his book Capital in The Twenty First Century says that “the importance of wealth in modern economies is approaching levels last seen before the first world war” where fascism raised its head. Piketty goes on: “inequality began to rise sharply in the 1970s and 1980s, which brings us to the present where half of the population of the world owns nothing; the poorest 50 % own less than 10 % of national wealth and generally less than 5 %. The richest 10 % of the world command 62 % of the total wealth while the poorest 50 % own only 4 %. The basis for this trend is the equation r>g (where r represents the rate of return on one’s capital and g represents the growth of the economy).
In December of 2016, in my essay “What did 2016 Bring”? I said: “Populism grew because of rising inequality which has been identified as the defining feature of our times. This exponential rise in inequality has in turn been attributed to two decades of failed liberal governance where western governments have been boosting the markets instead of developing and pumping money into economies”. This seems true today as well.
Niall Ferguson, in his book The Great Degeneration – How Institutions Decay and Economies Die speaks of Western civilization and institutions in the context of four “black boxes” which he “opens” in his book. They are: democracy; capitalism; the rule of law; and civil society. These four boxes”, in my view, form the bulwark of successful government and governance, which should drive the implementation of a political agenda of a government which was touted before the people before being elected. They also should apply to any democratic or purported democratic government, be it in the west or east. Ferguson goes on to quote Francis Fukuyama who says that the three components of a modern political order are a strong and capable State; the State’s subordination to a rule of law and government accountability to all citizens.
Social insecurity is prodded on by the lack of accountability of governments and the erosion of the social contract. The social contract is between the State and the individual where, in exchange of empowerment at democratic elections by the people, a government promises to protect its people and future generations from injustice and inequality. An erosion of this theory or breach of the contract would annul the legal legitimacy of a State. 
As we approach 2019, I would like to end on an optimistic note.  True, we must be aware of history and learn from it.  At the same time, we must not forget that we have come a long way. Steven Pinker, writing to the Economist’s The World in 2019 says: “ …the 1970s and 1980s saw double digit inflation and unemployment, gasoline lines, a nuclear standoff between America and the Soviet Union, communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe, fascist ones in Spain and Portugal, military ones in Latin America and East Asia, Marxist and secessionist terrorist brigades in Europe, civil wars throughout Africa and an Iran-Iraq war that killed more than half a million people”.  Pinker refers to the gradual rise in literacy and life expectancy and the decline in global poverty in modern times with the share of people living in democracies rising from 1% to 33%.
Wars are rarer now than before, but as long as inequality and social insecurity dominate the world, we are still under threat.  Those in power should recognize that nations should be known for their compassion rather than their achievements and the measure of our humanity to one another.   

Egypt court rejects activist Fathy's appeal, sends her back to jail


Activist was arrested in May over video she posted online criticising sexual harassment in Egypt

Fathy had been conditionally released on Thursday (Amnesty International)

Sunday 30 December 2018
An Egyptian appeals court on Sunday sent a rights activist to prison for two years over charges including "spreading false news", her lawyer and a court official said.
The court also fined Amal Fathy, who was released three days previously in another case, 10,000 Egyptian pounds ($560), AFP said. Fathy was handed the sentence in September but she appealed.
Her lawyer Ramadan Mohamed said on Sunday her appeal had been rejected and that she would now serve jail time. Fathy is also accused of publishing offensive content, Mohamed said. 
The Egyptian authorities have been criticised for launching a crackdown on opposition voices in the country and jailing scores of human rights activists, journalists, NGO workers and others.
The 34-year-old was arrested in May over a video she posted online, criticising sexual harassment in Egypt and alleging that guards at a bank had sexually harassed her.
She had been conditionally released on Thursday after being detained in another case with charges including "membership of a terrorist group".
The allegations of "belonging to a banned group" are related to Fathy’s membership of the April 6 Youth Movement, which played a significant role in organising the 2011 uprisings against then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The movement was banned by Egypt's court of urgent matters in April 2014.
READ MORE ►
After the court ordered Fathy's release on probation earlier this month, Najia Bounaim, the deputy regional director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International, called on the Egyptian authorities to drop all the charges against her.
A United Nations report in 2013 said that 99.3 percent of women in Egypt have experienced some form of sexual harassment.
Despite several anti-harassment movements, a report by Human Rights Watch five years later still found that “sexual harassment and violence against women remained endemic” in the country.
A poll conducted by the Thomson Reuters Foundation also reported in 2017 that Cairo was one of the most dangerous cities in the world for women.

The Welfare State Is Committing Suicide by Artificial Intelligence

Denmark is using algorithms to deliver benefits to citizens—and undermining its own democracy in the process.

An equation written at a secondary school on Dec. 1, 2014 in London. (Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)An equation written at a secondary school on Dec. 1, 2014 in London. (Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

No automatic alt text available.
BY , 
 | 
Everyone likes to talk about the ways that liberalism might be killed off, whether by populism at home or adversaries abroad. Fewer talk about the growing indications in places like Denmark that liberal democracy might accidentally commit suicide.

As a philosophy of government, liberalism is premised on the belief that the coercive powers of public authorities should be used in service of individual freedom and flourishing, and that they should therefore be constrained by laws controlling their scope, limits, and discretion. That is the basis for historic liberal achievements such as human rights and the rule of law, which are built into the infrastructure of the Scandinavian welfare state.

Yet the idea of legal constraint is increasingly difficult to reconcile with the revolution promised by artificial intelligence and machine learning—specifically, those technologies’ promises of vast social benefits in exchange for unconstrained access to data and lack of adequate regulation on what can be done with it. Algorithms hold the allure of providing wider-ranging benefits to welfare states, and of delivering these benefits more efficiently.

Such improvements in governance are undeniably enticing. What should concern us, however, is that the means of achieving them are not liberal. There are now growing indications that the West is slouching toward rule by algorithm—a brave new world in which vast fields of human life will be governed by digital code both invisible and unintelligible to human beings, with significant political power placed beyond individual resistance and legal challenge. Liberal democracies are already initiating this quiet, technologically enabled revolution, even as it undermines their own social foundation.

Consider the case of Denmark. The country currently leads the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law ranking, not least because of its well-administered welfare state. But the country does not appear to fully understand the risks involved in enhancing that welfare state through artificial intelligence applications. The municipality of Gladsaxe in Copenhagen, for example, has quietly been experimenting with a system that would use algorithms to identify children at risk of abuse, allowing authorities to target the flagged families for early intervention that could ultimately result in forced removals.

The children would be targeted based on specially designed algorithms tasked with crunching the information already gathered by the Danish government and linked to the personal identification number that is assigned to all Danes at birth. This information includes health records, employment information, and much more.

From the Danish government’s perspective, the child-welfare algorithm proposal is merely an extension of the systems it already has in place to detect social fraud and abuse. Benefits and entitlements covering millions of Danes have long been handled by a centralized agency (Udbetaling Danmark), and based on the vast amounts of personal data gathered and processed by this agency, algorithms create so-called puzzlement lists identifying suspicious patterns that may suggest fraud or abuse. These lists can then be acted on by the “control units” operated by many municipalities to investigate those suspected of receiving benefits to which they are not entitled. The data may include information on spouses and children, as well as information from financial institutions.

These practices might seem both well intended and largely benign. After all, a universal welfare state cannot function if the trust of those who contribute to it breaks down due to systematic freeriding and abuse. And in the prototype being developed in Gladsaxe, the application of big data and algorithmic processing seems to be perfectly virtuous, aimed as it is at upholding the core human rights of vulnerable children.

But the potential for mission creep is abundantly clear. Udbetaling Danmark is a case in point: The agency’s powers and its access to data have been steadily expanded over the years. A recent proposal even aimed at providing this program leviathan access to the electricity use of Danish households to better identify people who have registered a false address to qualify for extra benefits. The Danish government has also used a loophole in Europe’s new digital data rules to allow public authorities to use data gathered under one pretext for entirely different purposes.

And yet the perils of such programs are less understood and discussed than the benefits. Part of the reason may be that the West’s embrace of public-service algorithms are byproducts of lofty and genuinely beneficial initiatives aimed at better governance. But these externalities are also beneficial for those in power in creating a parallel form of governing alongside more familiar tools of legislation and policy-setting. And the opacity of the algorithms’ power means that it isn’t easy to determine when algorithmic governance stops serving the common good and instead becomes the servant of the powers that be. This will inevitably take a toll on privacy, family life, and free speech, as individuals will be unsure when their personal actions may come under the radar of the government.

Such government algorithms also weaken public accountability over the government. Danish citizens have not been asked to give specific consent to the massive data processing already underway. They are not informed if they are placed on “puzzlement lists,” nor whether it is possible to legally challenge one’s designation. And nobody outside the municipal government of Gladsaxe knows exactly how its algorithm would even identify children at risk.

Gladsaxe’s proposal has produced a major public backlash, which has forced the town to delay the program’s planned rollout. Nevertheless, the Danish government has expressed interest in widening the use of public-service algorithms across the country to bolster its welfare services—even at the expense of the freedom of the people they are intended to serve.

It may be tempting to dismiss algorithmic governance, or algocracy, as a mere continuation of authoritarianism, as represented by China’s notorious social credit systems, which have often been described as the 21st-century manifestation of Orwellian dystopia. And one-party states do indeed find obvious comfort in using new technologies like AI to consolidatethe power of the party and its interests. This conforms to historical examples of dictatorships using newspapers, radio, television, and other media for propaganda purposes while suppressing critical journalism and political pluralism.

But algocracy is not a matter of ideology, but rather technology and its inherently attractive potential. As Denmark makes clear, there are strong temptations for liberal democracies to govern with algorithmic tools that promise huge rewards in terms of efficiency, consistency and precision. Algocracies are likely to emerge as by-products of governments seeking to better deliver benefits to citizens. And despite the fundamental differences between China’s one-party state and Danish liberal democracy, the very democratic infrastructure that distinguishes the latter from the former might not be able to fulfil that role into the future.

There are good reasons to think judicial procedures would not be able to serve as a check on the growth of public-service algorithms. Consider the Danish case: the civil servants working to detect child abuse and social fraud will be largely unable to understand and explain why the algorithm identified a family for early intervention or individual for control. As deep learning progresses, algorithmic processes will only become more incomprehensible to human beings, who will be relegated to merely relying on the outcomes of these processes, without having meaningful access to the data or its processing that these algorithmic systems rely upon to produce specific outcomes. But in the absence of government actors making clear and reasoned decisions, it will be impossible for courts to hold them accountable for their actions.

Thus, algorithms designed with the sole purpose of eliminating social welfare free-riding will almost inevitably lead to increasingly draconian measures to police individual behavior. To prevent AI from serving as a tool toward this dystopian end, the West must focus more on algorithmic governance—regulations to ensure meaningful democratic participation and legitimacy in the production of the algorithms themselves. There is little doubt that this would reduce the efficiency of algorithmic processes. But such a compromise would be worthwhile, given the way that algocracy will otherwise involve the sacrifice of democracy.

Taliban dismiss Afghanistan's peace talks offer

FILE PHOTO: A member of the Taliban holds a flag in Kabul, Afghanistan June 16, 2018. The writing on the flag reads: 'There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah'. REUTERS/Mohammad Ismail/File Photo

Jibran Ahmad-DECEMBER 30, 2018

KABUL/PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - The Taliban have rejected Kabul’s offer of talks next month in Saudi Arabia where the militants, fighting to restore strict Islamic law in Afghanistan, will meet U.S. officials to further peace efforts, a Taliban leader said on Sunday.

Representatives from the Taliban, the United States and regional countries met this month in the United Arab Emirates for talks to end the 17-year war in Afghanistan.

But the Taliban have refused to hold formal talks with the Western-backed Afghan government.

“We will meet the U.S. officials in Saudi Arabia in January next year and we will start our talks that remained incomplete in Abu Dhabi,” a member of the Taliban’s decision-making Leadership Council told Reuters. “However, we have made it clear to all the stakeholders that we will not talk to the Afghan government.”

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid also said the leaders of the group would not talk to the Afghan government.

The militants have insisted on first reaching an agreement with the United States, which the group sees as the main force in Afghanistan since U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban government in 2001.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict have intensified after Taliban representatives started meeting U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad this year. Officials from the warring sides have met at least three times to discuss the withdrawal of international forces and a ceasefire in 2019.

But the United States has insisted that any final settlement must be led by the Afghans.

According to data from the NATO-led Resolute Support mission published in November, the government of President Ashraf Ghani has control or influence over 65 percent of the population but only 55.5 percent of Afghanistan’s 407 districts, less than at any time since 2001. The Taliban say they control 70 percent of the country.

A close aide to Ghani said the government would keep trying to establish a direct line of diplomatic communication with the Taliban.

“Talks should be Afghan-led and Afghan-owned,” the aide said on condition of anonymity. “It is important that the Taliban acknowledge this fact.”

U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a pullout of American troops from Syria, a decision that prompted the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis, and there have been reports that he is considering a partial pullout from Afghanistan.

Additional reporting by Rupam Jain in Kabul, Editing by Nick Macfie

Sudan protests continue against Bashir

29 Dec 2018
The Sudanese opposition leader is under arrest – amid a crackdown on anti-government protests held across the country.
Security forces fired shots into the air last night to disperse crowds in the capital, Khartoum – as demonstrations against President al-Bashir continued for a tenth day in a row.
Amnesty International said at least 37 people have been killed and hundreds injured.
From Khartoum, Yousra Elbagir reports – and we should warn you there are some images of violence.

UK and France pledge drive to tackle people smuggling in Channel

Labour accuse government of whipping up migration issue ahead of Brexit vote
French authorities intercept a small boat carrying migrants near Dunkirk. Photograph: AP



The home secretary, Sajid Javid, and his French counterpart have pledged to step up joint efforts to tackle cross-Channel people smuggling, as Labour accused the Tories of whipping up concern about the issue.

Six Iranian men were found on a beach near Deal in Kent on Sunday morning with a small boat, the Home Office confirmed, bringing the number who have made the perilous crossing since Christmas Day to almost 100.

They were handed over to be processed by immigration officers after receiving a medical assessment, the Home Office said.

Javid flew back early from a family holiday in South Africa to take direct control of the situation, which the government declared a major incident on Friday, although Home Office sources said there was no clear evidence of a sudden sharp increase in the number of arrivals via the Channel.

Javid and the French interior minister, Christophe Castaner, are expected to launch a joint action plan later this week. It will include more patrols in the area, enhanced intelligence-sharing aimed at breaking up the gangs involved, and an information campaign to raise awareness about the risks of the crossing.

The pair had what the Home Office said was a significant and productive phone call on Sunday, after which Castaner said they had agreed to “strengthen our actions to combat Channel crossings undertaken by certain irregular migrants on small boats, at peril of their lives”.

He told Javid that French authorities had dismantled a people-smuggling gang operating in the area on 19 December.

Javid will chair a meeting on Monday that will bring together senior officials from the Border Force, the National Crime Agency and other authorities.

New year, new me: The dos & don’ts of setting new year resolutions


By  | 
IF YOU feel you consistently fail at your New Year’s resolutions, you are not alone.
Despite our good intentions, we’re pretty poor at changing our own behaviour. We continue to smoke, eat or drink too much, and exercise too little, all of which affect our health and well-being.
In trying to change behaviour (including our own), we need to reduce resistance. You’ve likely heard some of the pitfalls of setting unspecific or unrealistic goals. Another contributor to resistance is when our intended action is not something we are personally motivated to do.
Psychological studies show we can overcome resistance by setting goals that tap into what we find meaningful and that reflect our needs.

Why New Year’s resolutions fail

Why is it when we set a New Year’s resolution our behaviour doesn’t change, or it only changes for a limited time? There is a common obstacle that could underlie the failure of changing behaviour: resistance or more particularly inertia.
Inertia is a form of resistance where we can’t motivate ourselves to perform a behaviour. We know what we need to do, the intention is there, we just don’t do it.
One trap we can fall into is setting goals that aren’t really our own – they’re not personalised. Instead, we often set generic resolutions, such as to exercise more.
ny-1
Are your goals what you expect others want from you, or are they your own? Source: Shutterstock
These may have been adopted from someone else’s goal or may be based on what we feel we should change, as per social expectations or norms.
Adopting broad, generic goals may be a good starting point for change, but generic goals can also be conducive to resistance because they are low in personal relevance.
Setting goals that draw on personal motivations produces greater confidence in our ability to change and a greater sense of ownership over the process. These lead to larger and more lasting changes in behaviour.

What are your personal motivations?

The importance of ownership for personal motivation is captured nicely in what is known as the self-determination theory of motivation.
This places a high level of importance on doing what we find to be intrinsically motivating or working from what is inherently rewarding or satisfying. It’s in contrast to extrinsic or external motivations which can create feelings of coercion when we follow goals imposed by invisible others.
If you choose to exercise more as your New Year’s resolution because you think people will find you more attractive or because you feel guilty for not doing it, chances are you are working primarily from external sources of motivation.
If, on the other hand, you find exercise interesting and enjoyable or feel it expresses a personal value to be healthy, you are likely to be working from internal, personal motivations.
So, say your personal goal is to read 50 books in the year because you value knowledge. How do you put this into practice and make sure your resolution sticks?
ny-2
Say you want to read 50 books this year. How do you keep to it? Source: Gaelle Marcel/Unsplash

How to put this into practice

One simple behaviour-change technique that can be applied to New Year’s resolutions is self-persuasion.
This essentially involves generating an argument for why you would like to change a certain behaviour.
Try to consider what is most salient and personally motivating for you and what a certain change could bring that you value. Perhaps you value knowledge and empathy, and you believe the more books you read about people’s struggles, the greater understanding you will have of others.
Maybe exercising more, like getting involved in group sports, will help connect you with your friends. Or perhaps you enjoy alone time, and going for long hikes will give you more opportunities for quiet contemplation.
Although one of these examples may resonate with you, it’s possible these aren’t at all relevant to you. This is why it is important to examine what you find personally relevant.
The self-persuasion technique has been successfully applied in a variety of settings, including producing moderate, short-term reductions in smoking and work-related stress, and increases in tipping and intentions to help others.
Generating your own arguments is more effective in evoking change than reading multiple arguments generated by other people, even when the quality of the provided arguments is rated as being better than yours.
But when using the self-persuasion technique, remember less may be more. You are better off generating one to two reasons for your intended change than trying to generate a long list of arguments.
Also in studies that have tested this technique, participants have usually had to write their reasons down. This increased involvement may have also helped.

And then?

This is not the whole story of setting effective New Year’s resolutions. Changing behaviour takes time and effort – particularly if you are trying to change a well-established habit.
During the change process, reflect often: consider what is and what isn’t working, and how you could overcome obstacles that interfere with you achieving your goals.
This is where you can apply other goal-setting and behaviour-change techniques you may have learned about previously, such as understanding and altering what triggers and maintains your behaviour.
Implementation intentions are particularly helpful in setting goals and overcoming obstacles.
This technique requires setting specific if-then plans for how you will respond in a particular situation — such as how you will ensure you get your daily dose of exercise if it is raining.
Five steps to setting personalised New Year’s resolutions:
  1. Generate a broad resolution or goal as a starting point (exercise more)
  2. Reflect on your motivation for this goal: is it driven by internal motivations and aligned with other aspects of your personality? If not, revisit the first step
  3. Write down one or two reasons why the resolution is important for you
  4. Write down plans for achieving your goal, including if-then strategies
  5. Continue to review your progress and modify your personal goal as required.
The most beautifully constructed goals will be ineffective if they aren’t personally relevant.
Before you consider how to turn over your new leaf, it might be worth examining which leaf you want to turn over, and why.count
By Bernice Plant, Assistant Lecturer, Monash University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Japan leaving IWC, to resume commercial whaling

  • The government of Japan confirmed today that it is withdrawing from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and will resume commercial whaling operations in the North Pacific.
  • The IWC, an inter-governmental organization founded in 1946 focused on whale conservation and management of the whaling industry, adopted a moratorium on hunting whales in 1982.
  • The moratorium allows for IWC member nations to issue whaling permits for scientific research purposes. Japan has openly flouted the moratorium by issuing such permits and selling the harvested whale meat ever since the moratorium took effect in 1986.
by  on 26 December 2018


The government of Japan confirmed today that it is withdrawing from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and will resume commercial whaling operations in the North Pacific.

The IWC, an inter-governmental organization founded in 1946 focused on whale conservation and management of the whaling industry, adopted a moratorium on hunting whales in 1982.

The moratorium allows for IWC member nations to issue whaling permits for scientific research purposes. Japan has openly flouted the moratorium by issuing such permits and selling the harvested whale meat ever since the moratorium took effect in 1986.

According to the New York Times, Japan has set an annual quota of 333 minke whales in the Southern Ocean, which led to the capture and death of 122 pregnant females in the 2017-18 hunting season. In announcing its exit from the IWC, Japan said it will stop hunting whales in the Antarctic and restrict whaling activities to its own waters in the North Pacific starting in July 2019.

The NYT also reported that Yoshihide Suga, Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, said that his country is leaving the IWC because the organization has failed to develop a sustainable whaling industry and was instead too focused on conservation.

“In its long history, Japan has used whales not only as a source of protein but also for a variety of other purposes,” Suga reportedly said. “Engagement in whaling has been supporting local communities, and thereby developed the life and culture of using whales.”

Environmentalists were quick to blast Japan’s announcement that it would resume commercial whaling.

“By leaving the IWC but continuing to kill whales in the North Pacific, Japan now becomes a pirate whaling nation killing these ocean leviathans completely outside the bounds of international law,” Kitty Block, president of Humane Society International, said in a statement. “For decades Japan has aggressively pursued a well-funded whaling campaign to upend the global ban on commercial whaling. It has consistently failed but instead of accepting that most nations no longer want to hunt whales, it has now simply walked out.”

Block added: “Humane Society International calls on Japan to cease whaling and for other concerned nations to let Japan know that what they propose is unacceptable. At this point in the twenty-first century we need greater international cooperation to help conserve and protect our wild animals and their environment not less.”


A minke whale breaching. Photo by Martin Cathrae, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

How to resist 'drink pushers' during the festive season

Actor Stephen McGann
Actor Stephen McGann gets indignant with those who try to make him drink alcohol

27 December 2018
When actor Stephen McGann recently tweeted about his frustration with people who pressurised others to drink alcohol, he received an outpouring of support on social media.
"Many people talked to me about the agonies they go through during Christmas. If you don't drink, for health or addiction reasons, then imagine how hard it is to be pressured into drinking," says the Call the Midwife actor.
McGann, who is 55, gave up alcohol 18 years ago after training for a charity trek. "I grew up in the North in that beer culture, where you would sit in the pub and get a bladder-full. Now I don't get hangovers and I enjoy being the designated driver.
"One friend really got wound up by me not drinking. Am not sure he's ever got over it. Now I get bloody-minded and indignant if people try to push a drink on me. Booze is so deeply ingrained in our culture. Recently I was at a do where a waiter put a glass of wine in my hand before I'd even said hello. Imagine if I was a recovering alcoholic? People would never try to get a vegetarian to eat meat."

'As soon as the British get the off switch, they drink'

Author Matt Haig, 43, who has written about his struggles with depression in his bestselling book, Reasons to Stay Alive, describes himself as a part-time teetotaller.
Author Matt Haig
Author Matt Haig says he avoids events where he will feel under pressure to drink
"I love drinking, but if I drink too much then it can trigger anxiety and then depression, so I have massive patches of not drinking. Sometimes it's just easier not to go out, as I get too tempted.
"Even if others don't pressurise me, you feel a silent pressure. It's a bit like being a vegan, it gets other people's backs up because they feel guilty or judged."
Haig notes British society's obsession with drinking. "As soon as we get that off switch we drink. Go to Gatwick and you'll see people drinking at 08:00. It's changing, young people are drinking less, but I'll never be that Mediterranean person who can have one glass of wine."
His tips for being a non-drinker include ordering a virgin Bloody Mary, "it feels hedonistic", going to a restaurant rather than a bar or pub, doing exercise to replace that space where you "let off steam", and saying to those who try to foist drinks on you: "I don't drink."
"People think there must be a reason and don't question it. It's about not feeling guilty, and not doing things out of obligation. The trouble with being a man is that we literally can't think of anywhere to meet that isn't a pub."

'I tell them I'm a loose cannon if I drink'


Catherine Gray
Catherine Gray used to be a "drink pusher" until she gave up alcohol

Catherine Gray, author of The Unexpected Joy of Being Sober Journal, recalls how when she used to drink she was one of the "meanest drink pushers".
"If somebody wasn't drinking I didn't want them there. But it was to do with my issues rather than them. It's the heaviest drinkers who call you no fun. They want an accomplice."
Gray, 38, gave up alcohol five years ago. "I couldn't moderate. But then I hardly know anyone who can moderate, it's hard."
Now when people try to encourage her to drink she makes a joke of it. "Nobody wants to hear you go on about the health risks. I tell them I'm a loose cannon. I make a joke out of it. Never be apologetic, people will leap on that."

'Social loneliness'

Yet despite the fact that alcohol is deeply embedded in our social lives, the culture is changing. Recent figures from a study by the University of London showed that almost a third of young people don't drink at all.
Even so, young people, particularly those with mental health issues, still struggle with alcohol.
Jennifer Griffin, psychotherapist and general manager of Turn2me - an online charitable mental health website for young people, says many of those they help find social occasions that revolve around drinking difficult.
"Alcohol is linked to anxiety and depression. Yet socialising is how young people develop a connection to their peers. If they choose not to socialise because they will be exposed to alcohol, then they might alienate themselves and suffer from loneliness.
"The [buying a] round system is also an issue, it's lovely and generous, but it's difficult to resist."
Griffin suggests working out a strategy in advance, and prioritising your own needs.
As awareness of the health risks grow, not drinking, or cutting back on drinking, is becoming increasingly common. Everyone is in agreement. If someone says no to a drink, don't ask twice.